Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v European Commission.
Date: 2015-09-10
30. Given that reference to the Staff Regulations, it is therefore necessary, in order to determine the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal, to take those regulations into account, in particular Articles 90 and 91 thereof, which implement Article 270 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment in Syndicat général du personnel des organismes européens  v Commission , 18/74, EU:C:1974:96, paragraph 14).
31. The Staff Regulations are intended to regulate legal relations between the European institutions and their officials, by establishing a series of reciprocal rights and obligations and by affording certain members of an official’s family rights which they may assert in relation to the European Union (judgment in Johannes , C‑430/97, EU:C:1999:293, paragraph 19).
37. On the question of whether the jurisdiction ratione materiae  of the Civil Service Tribunal extends to actions for damages based on the failure of an institution to fulfil its obligation to ensure the protection of its officials, it should be noted that both Article 270 TFEU and Article 91 of the Staff Regulations which relate to ‘any dispute between the Union and its servants’ refrain from defining the type of action available in the event of rejection of an administrative complaint. Therefore, where proceedings concern the legality of an act adversely affecting an applicant, within the meaning of Article 90 of those regulations, the Civil Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine those proceedings, whatever, moreover, the type of action at issue (see in relation to the jurisdiction of the Court, before the creation of the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal, judgment in Meyer-Burckhardt  v Commission , 9/75, EU:C:1975:131, paragraph 10).
38. It is in those circumstances that the Court held that a dispute between an official and the institution by whom he is or was employed, where it originates in the relationship of employment between that person and the institution, falls under Article 270 TFEU and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, even if it is a claim for compensation (see judgments in Meyer-Burckhardt  v Commission , 9/75, EU:C:1975:131, paragraph 10; Reinarz  v Commission and Council , 48/76, EU:C:1977:30, paragraphs 10 and 11; and Allo and Others  v Commission , 176/83, EU:C:1985:290, paragraph 18; order in Pomar  v Commission , 317/85, EU:C:1987:267, paragraph 7; judgment in Schina  v Commission , 401/85, EU:C:1987:425, paragraph 9).
39. Further, the unlimited jurisdiction that the second sentence of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations, read in conjunction with Article 270 TFEU and Article 1 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, confers on the Civil Service Tribunal allows it, if need be, in disputes of a financial character, of its own motion to order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage caused by the defendant’s wrongful act and, in such a case, taking account of all of the circumstances of the case, to assess the damage suffered ex aequo et bono (see, to that effect, judgments in Reinarz v Commission and Council , 48/76, EU:C:1977:30, paragraph 11; Houyoux and Guery  v Commission , 176/86 and 177/86, EU:C:1987:461, paragraph 16; Commission v Girardot , C‑348/06 P, EU:C:2008:107, paragraph 58; and Gogos  v Commission , C‑583/08 P, EU:C:2010:287, paragraph 44). ‘Disputes of a financial character’, within the meaning of the first of those provisions, include, in particular, actions brought by staff members seeking to have an institution held liable (judgment in Gogos  v Commission, C‑583/08 P, EU:C:2010:287, paragraph 45).
40. The Court concluded that it is for the Courts of the European Union, in an appropriate case, to order an institution to pay a sum to which the applicant is entitled under the Staff Regulations or another legal measure (judgment in Weißenfels  v Parliament , C‑135/06 P, EU:C:2007:812, paragraph 68).
42. The same is true of an action for damages brought by anyone who, although not an official, is covered by the Staff Regulations as a result of family ties he has with an official, since the dispute has its origin in the employment relationship between that official and the institution concerned, having regard to the fact that Article 1 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, read in conjunction with Article 270 TFEU and Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, confers, as has been held at paragraphs 32, 33 and 37 of the present judgment, on the Civil Service Tribunal the jurisdiction to hear and determine ‘any dispute’ between the European Union and any ‘person to whom the Staff Regulations apply’.
60.  It follows that the Court cannot confine itself to finding that the unity or consistency of EU law is affected without stating the implications of that finding as regards the dispute in question (judgment in Review of Commission  v Strack , C‑579/12 RX-II, EU:C:2013:570, paragraph 62 and the case-law cited).