CELEX: 62006FO0063
Language: en
Date: 2007-10-17 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2007. # Luigi Mascheroni v Commission of the European Communities. # Public service - Officials. # Case F-63/06.

ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)
      17 October 2007
      Case F-63/06
      Luigi Mascheroni
      v
      Commission of the European Communities 
      (Civil service – Officials – Administration’s duty to provide assistance – Article 24 of the Staff Regulations – Harassment by the hierarchical superior – Investigation by IDOC – Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance)
      Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Mascheroni seeks annulment of the decision of the appointing authority
         of 14 July 2005 rejecting his application for assistance made on 26 March 2004, which was based on the allegedly vexatious
         and defamatory conduct of Mr V. H., his hierarchical superior.
      
      Held: The action is dismissed as partly manifestly unfounded and partly manifestly inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.
      
      Summary
      1.      Officials – Actions – Subject-matter – Issue of directions to the administration – Inadmissibility 
      (Staff Regulations, Art. 91)
      2.      Officials – Administration’s duty to render assistance – Scope 
      (Staff Regulations, Art. 24)
      3.      Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Procedural requirements 
      (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))
      1.      It is not for the Tribunal to make declarations of principle or to issue directions to Community institutions as part of an
         action brought under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations.
      
      (see para. 23)
      See:
      T-94/92 X v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑149 and II‑481, para. 33; T-28/96 Chew v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑165 and II‑497, para. 17; T-134/99 Skrzypek v Commission [2000] ECR‑SC I‑A‑139 and II‑633, para. 16; T-14/03 Di Marzio v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑43 and II‑167, para. 63
      
      2.      By virtue of the duty to render assistance imposed upon it by the first paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations,
         the administration, when faced with an incident which is incompatible with the good order and tranquillity of the service,
         must intervene with all the necessary vigour and respond with the rapidity and solicitude required by the circumstances of
         the case with a view to ascertaining the facts and taking the appropriate action in full knowledge of the facts. To that end,
         it is sufficient that the official who is seeking the protection of his institution provide at least some evidence of the
         reality of attacks of which he claims he was the victim. When such evidence is provided, the institution concerned is under
         an obligation to take the necessary measures, in particular to undertake an inquiry, with the cooperation of the complainant,
         to determine the facts which gave rise to the complaint.
      
      A final report by the Investigation and Disciplinary Office, the Commission department responsible for conducting administrative
         inquiries with the purpose of ascertaining the facts in order to enable the appointing authority to reach a decision on an
         application for assistance in full knowledge of the facts, does not constitute a decision on the application for assistance,
         but is a response to the request to investigate the facts made to it by that authority.
      
      (see paras 36, 40-41)
      See:
      224/87 Koutchoumoff v Commission [1989] ECR 99, paras 15 and 16
      
      T-5/92 Tallarico v Parliament [1993] ECR II‑477, para. 31; T‑136/98 Campogrande v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑267 and II‑1225, para. 42
      
      3.      Under the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to the procedure before the Civil
         Service Tribunal by virtue of Article 7(1) of Annex I to that Statute, and Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the
         Court of First Instance, an application must, in particular, state the subject-matter of the dispute and contain a brief statement
         of the pleas in law on which the application is based. Those particulars must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable
         the defendant to prepare his defence and to enable the Tribunal to give judgment in the action without having to seek further
         information, if appropriate. In order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice it is necessary,
         for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on are indicated, at least in summary
         form, coherently and intelligibly in the text of the application itself.
      
      The applicant cannot therefore merely formulate his pleas in abstract terms, by confining himself to stating that the contested
         act infringes a given provision of the Staff Regulations, without substantiating that statement further by specifying the
         nature of the grounds on which the application is based.
      
      Whilst the body of the application may be supported and supplemented on specific points by references to extracts from documents
         annexed thereto, a general reference to other documents, even those annexed to the application, cannot make up for the absence
         of the essential arguments in law which must appear in the application. It is not for the Tribunal to seek and identify in
         the annexes the pleas and arguments on which it may consider the action to be based.
      
      (see paras 52-53, 56-57)
      See:
      T-16/91 Rendo and Others v Commission [1992] ECR II‑2417, para. 130; T-33/89 and T-74/89 Blackman v Parliament [1993] ECR II‑249, paras 64 and 65; T-85/92 De Hoe v Commission [1993] ECR II‑523, para. 20; T-43/91 Hoyer v Commission [1994] ECR‑SC I‑A‑91 and II‑297, para. 22; T-154/98 Asia Motor France and Others v Commission [1999] ECR II‑1703, para. 49; T-277/97 Ismeri Europa v Court of Auditors [1999] ECR II‑1825, para. 29; T-91/04 Just v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑395 and II‑1801, para. 35; T-92/04 Moren Abat v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑399 and II‑1817, para. 31; T-424/04 Angelidis v Parliament [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-323 and II-A-2-1649, paras 39 to 42