CELEX: 62008FO0042
Language: en
Date: 2009-02-18 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 February 2009. # Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities. # Public service - Officials - Action for damages - Manifest inadmissibility. # Case F-42/08.

ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)
      18 February 2009 
      Case F-42/08
      Luigi Marcuccio
      v
      Commission of the European Communities 
      (Civil service – Officials – Actions for damages – Failure to comply with a reasonable period for lodging a claim for compensation – Manifest inadmissibility)
      Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio essentially seeks an order for the Commission to compensate
         him for the damage resulting from the fact that it purportedly sent him a note to a fax number which it should not have used.
      
      Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
      
      Summary
      Officials – Actions – Time-limits – Claim for compensation addressed to an institution – Duty to act within a reasonable time
      (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46; Staff Regulations, Art. 90)
      It is for officials or other staff members to refer to the institution any claim seeking compensation from the Community for
         damage allegedly attributable to it, within a reasonable period from the time they became aware of the situation they complain
         of. The reasonableness of the period must be assessed according to the circumstances applicable in each individual case and,
         in particular, according to the interests in issue for the parties in the case, the complexity of the case and the conduct
         of the parties involved.
      
      Account must also be taken, in that regard, of the point of reference provided by the limitation period of five years laid
         down for actions in non-contractual liability by Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. However, the five-year
         period does not constitute a hard and fast limit below which any application is admissible regardless of the time the applicant
         has taken to put his application to the administration and of the circumstances of the case.
      
      (see paras 19-22)
      See:
      T-144/02 Eagle and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II‑3381, paras 65 and 66
      
      F-125/05 Tsarnavas v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, paras 76 and 77