Anna Maria Campogrande v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2002-04-23
24 It is settled law, however, that, in regard to a claim for compensation for damage, it is for the Court of First Instance alone, by virtue of Article 225 EC and Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, to assess the existence of the damage and the causal link between that damage and the facts giving rise to it, save where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Case C-362/95 P Blackspur DIY and Others v Council and Commission [1997] ECR I-4775, paragraphs 28 and 29). In the present case, it is clear from the documents before the Court that the Court of First Instance made use, without distorting it, of all the evidence available to it, evidence that, moreover, was consistent and was not effectively challenged by Ms Campogrande. This part of the first ground of appeal, which, effectively, amounts to a request to the Court to substitute its own assessment of the evidence for that of the Court of First Instance, must be declared inadmissible in proceedings under Article 225 EC and Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice.
33 As to the justification of that crystallisation of the content of the preliminary complaint, it must be remembered, first, that it is settled case-law that the pre-litigation procedure is intended to allow, as a priority, an amicable settlement of the differences arising between officials or other servants and the administration. In order for such a procedure to achieve its objective, it is necessary that the appointing authority be in a position to know with sufficient precision the criticisms formulated by the persons concerned against the contested decision (see, to that effect, Case 58/75 Sergy v Commission [1976] ECR 1139, paragraph 32). The Court also points out that the administration must not interpret complaints in a restrictive manner, but must, on the contrary, examine them with an open mind.
34 Next, it is settled case-law that, in actions brought by officials, although the relief sought in the application to the Court must be the same as that set out in the complaint and although the application may only contain heads of claim based on the same legal basis as that relied on in the complaint, those heads of claim may, in the non-contentious stage of the procedure, be developed by the submission of pleas and arguments not necessarily appearing in the complaint, but which are closely linked to it (Case 242/85 Geist v Commission [1987] ECR 2181, paragraph 9).
35 It follows, as Ms Campogrande argues, that the substance of the complaint is not intended to be strictly and definitively binding for the purposes of the contentious stage of the procedure, provided always that neither the legal basis nor the subject- matter of the complaint is changed in the action brought (Case 52/85 Rihoux and Others v Commission [1986] ECR 1555, paragraph 12). Thus the Court has held that, where the applicant asked in his complaint for the annulment of the implied decision rejecting his request for assistance, he must be regarded as having asked for compensation for the damage which may have been caused to him by that decision (see Case 224/87 Koutchoumoff v Commission [1989] ECR 99, paragraph 10).
43 Finally, although the Court of First Instance rightly pointed out that the Community courts do not have jurisdiction to issue directions to the Commission, it did so only with a view to rejecting the appellant's claim for her career to be reconstituted and not for the purpose of refusing to rule on the question whether she had in fact suffered the alleged damage.
44 Besides, if Ms Campogrande's allegations are designed to show that the reparation granted by the judgment under appeal is inadequate, it must be pointed out that, once the Court of First Instance has found that there is damage, it alone is competent to determine, within the limits of the claim, the manner and extent of reparation of that damage (Case C-136/92 P Commission v Brazzelli Lualdi and Others [1994] ECR I-1981, paragraph 81), with the result that that determination can no longer be the subject of argument before the Court of Justice.