natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Under alle omstændigheder fastslog Retten i dommens præmis 125-138, at ingen anden del af denne skade kunne tages i betragtning ved fastsættelsen af størrelsen af den rimelige økonomiske godtgørelse.
In any event, the Court of First Instance considered, in paragraphs 125 to 138 of that judgment, that none of the other losses could be taken into consideration when setting the amount of the fair financial compensation.
Navnlig for så vidt angik den ikke-økonomiske skade, der var opstået som følge af forringelsen af hendes psykiske tilstand og hendes depressive tilstand samt den fysiske skade, som det ulovlige afslag på hendes ansøgninger havde forvoldt, fastslog Retten, at Marie-Claude Girardot ikke havde fremlagt nogen dokumentation for hendes tilstand, f.eks. i form af en lægeattest eller gyldig sagkyndig erklæring.
In particular, as regards the nonmaterial harm resulting from the deterioration of Mrs Girardot’s mental health and her depression and the physical harm caused by the unlawful rejection of her applications, the Court of First Instance considered, in paragraphs 133 and 137 of that judgment, that Mrs Girardot had not produced any evidence of their existence, such as a medical certificate or appropriate expert report.
Parternes påstande
The forms of order sought by the parties
— Den appellerede dom ophæves.
— annul the judgment under appeal;
— Kommissionen tilpligtes at betale Marie-Claude Girardot et beløb på 23 917,4 EUR.
— order the Commission to pay Mrs Girardot a sum of EUR 23 917.40;
— Hver part tilpligtes at bære sine egne omkostninger i appelsagen og i sagen for Retten.
— order that each of the parties should bear its own costs in relation to the present proceedings and to the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
— Appellen afvises eller forkastes under alle omstændigheder som ugrundet.
— declare the appeal brought by the Commission to be inadmissible and, in any event, unfounded;
— Kontraappellen antages til realitetsbehandling, den appellerede dom ophæves, og indstævnte gives medhold i de påstande om annullation og erstatning, hun nedlagde i første instans.
— declare her cross-appeal to be admissible, to annul the judgment under appeal and to uphold her claims for annulment and damages submitted at first instance;
Kommissionen har fremsat et enkelt anbringende, der går ud på, at den metode, Retten anvendte til at beregne tabet for den mistede ansættelsesmulighed, udgør en tilsidesættelse af artikel 236 EF og af betingelserne for Kommissionens ifald af erstatningsansvar.
The Commission submits a single ground of appeal, alleging that the method used by the Court of First Instance to calculate the loss of opportunity is an infringement of Article 236 EC and of the conditions governing the liability of the Commission.
I denne forbindelse har Kommissionen indledningsvis anført, at dens appel, henset til Rettens uklare praksis på området, af retssikkerhedshensyn har til formål at få Domstolen til at fastslå, hvorledes tabet af en fortabt mulighed for ansættelse ved Kommissionen skal beregnes i en situation, hvor den har truffet en ulovlig afgørelse, hvorved den pågældende blev berøvet en behandling af sin ansøgning.
The Commission explains, first, that, given the conflicting caselaw of the Court of First Instance on the matter, the objective of its appeal is to obtain, in the interests of legal certainty, a ruling from the Court of Justice on the manner of calculating the loss of an opportunity to be recruited by the Commission when it has made an unlawful decision depriving the person concerned of the expectation that his application will be examined.
Kommissionen har tilføjet, at det formål, der forfølges med denne appel, således består i, at Domstolen angiver en retlig begrundelse og en ensartet måde, hvorpå en sådan mistet mulighed skal beregnes i alle situationer.
The Commission adds that the objective of its appeal is thus that the Court of Justice identify a consistent legal argument and a method for the purpose of calculating such loss of opportunity which would be applicable in all situations.
Kommissionen har herved præciseret, at den anerkender, at en fortabt mulighed for ansættelse udgør et fysisk tab, der kan erstattes.
The Commission makes clear on that point that it accepts the idea that the loss of an opportunity to obtain a post is material damage for which compensation can be paid.
Kommissionen er derimod uenig i den måde, hvorpå Retten har opgjort Marie-Claude Girardots tab.
On the other hand, it cannot accept the manner in which the Court of First Instance quantified the damage suffered by Mrs Girardot.
Ifølge Kommissionen er den appellerede doms præmis 58 herved behæftet med en retlig fejl.
According to the Commission, paragraph 58 of the judgment under appeal is on that point vitiated by errors of law.
Det eneste faktiske og reelle tab, Marie-Claude Girardot har lidt, er nemlig efter Kommissionens opfattelse det, der følger af den manglende behandling af hendes ansøgninger og ikke det, der følger af et teoretisk tab af vederlag i en periode, der er ligeså teoretisk.
The only damage suffered by Mrs Girardot which is actual and certain is that resulting from the failure to examine her application and not that resulting from a hypothetical loss of earnings for a period which is no less hypothetical.
Selv om Retten i dommens præmis 99 og 116 har anerkendt, at Kommissionen dels ikke havde nogen forpligtelse til at fuldføre ansættelsesproceduren, dels at det ikke tilkom Retten at foretage sammenligningen af ansøgernes fortjenester på Kommissionens vegne, foretog den imidlertid reelt en sådan sammenligning i dommens præmis 62-95.
Although, in paragraphs 99 and 116 of that judgment, the Court of First Instance recognises, first, that the Commission was under no obligation to complete the recruitment procedure and, secondly, that it is not the function of the Court to carry out in the place of the Commission a consideration of the comparative merits of candidates, the Court did in fact undertake such a consideration in paragraphs 62 to 95 of that judgment.
Retten beregnede således ikke det faktiske og reelle tab, der er forbundet med den fortabte mulighed, men opgjorde derimod det teoretiske tab, der er forbundet med et løntab, hvilket forudsætter, at der består et retskrav på ansættelse.
The Court of First Instance therefore did not assess the actual and certain damage linked to the loss of opportunity, but determined the hypothetical damage linked to loss of earnings, which presupposes an entitlement to be recruited.
Retten forvekslede derfor begrebet fortabt mulighed med fortabt sikkerhed om at opnå en stilling, hvorved den underkendte den skønsmargen og det valg, som fællesskabsinstitutionerne råder over med hensyn til ansættelser.
The Court of First Instance thereby misinterpreted the concept of loss of opportunity as loss of the certainty of obtaining a post, and in so doing failed to recognise the margin of discretion and freedom to choose which the Community institutions must have in the area of recruitment.
I denne sammenhæng fremhævede Kommissionen i øvrigt under retsmødet, at der ikke er nogen direkte årsagsforbindelse mellem den af Kommissionen udviste fejl, der
The Commission stressed moreover, at the hearing, that there is no direct causal link between the wrongful act committed by the Commission, namely its failure
KOMMISSIONEN MOD GIRARDOT består i, at den ikke tog hensyn til Marie-Claude Girardots ansøgninger og det tab, Retten i sidste ende fastslog forelå i den appellerede dom.
COMMISSION v GIRARDOT to take Mrs Girardot’s applications into consideration, and the damage ultimately determined by the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal.
Efter Domstolens praksis skal tabet imidlertid fremgå klart af den påklagede adfærd (jf. bl.a. dom af 4.10.1979, forenede sager 64/76, 113/76, 167/78, 239/78, 27/79, 28/79 og 45/79, Dumortier m.fl. mod Rådet, Sml. s. 3091, præmis 21).
However, according to the caselaw (Joined Cases 64/76, 113/76, 167/78, 239/78, 27/79, 28/79 and 45/79 Dumortier and Others [1979] ECR 3091, paragraph 21), the damage must be a direct consequence of the conduct alleged to be unlawful.
Kommissionen er af den opfattelse, at den retlige fejl underbygges af den omstændighed, at Retten for at beregne løntabet tog hensyn til det vederlag, den pågældende havde oppebåret i perioden.
The Commission considers that the error of law is further demonstrated by the fact that, to calculate the loss of earnings, the Court of First Instance took into consideration the earnings received in the interim by the person concerned.
Såfremt det antages, at indstævnte i den omhandlede periode havde udøvet beskæftigelse, der var bedre aflønnet end den, hun havde kunnet opnå ved Kommissionen, ville hun nemlig ikke have lidt noget løntab, uanset at hun havde fortabt en mulighed.
In the event that the post she held during the period in question had been better paid than that which she could have held at the Commission, she would have suffered no loss of earnings while she would still have suffered a loss of opportunity.
Da denne metode afhænger af usikre omstændigheder, kan den føre til forskelsbehandling mellem ansøgere til den samme stilling.
Since that method depends on circumstances which are a matter of chance, it is likely to lead to discrimination between candidates in the same recruitment exercise.
Efter Kommissionens opfattelse forstærkes den fejlagtige karakter af Rettens begrundelse desuden af det andet punkt, der er nævnt i den appellerede doms præmis 58, nemlig at forskellen i vederlag »eventuelt« kan ansættes ved hjælp af en procentsats, der udtrykker den mulighed, den pågældende havde for at blive ansat.
According to the Commission, the error in the reasoning of the Court of First Instance is magnified by the second point made in paragraph 58 of the judgment under appeal, namely that the difference in earnings may, ‘where appropriate’, be adjusted in amount by a percentage representing the chance which the person concerned had of being recruited.
Denne omstændighed viser nemlig endnu en gang, at Retten søgte at opgøre det tab, der opstod som følge af et teoretisk løntab, og ikke det tab, der fulgte af den fortabte mulighed for ansættelse, eftersom beregningen af dette løntab kun eventuelt vurderes i forhold til den teoretiske mulighed for at opnå den omhandlede stilling.
That point shows again that the objective of the Court of First Instance was to quantify the damage caused by a hypothetical loss of earnings and not that caused by loss of the chance of being recruited, since the calculation of that loss of earnings may be assessed only by reference to the hypothetical chance of obtaining the post in question.
Retten kastede sig i denne sammenhæng i øvrigt ud i usikre formodninger med henblik på at vurdere sandsynligheden for, at Marie-Claude Girardot opnåede ansættelse, selv om hun ikke havde et retskrav herpå.
Moreover, for this purpose the Court of First Instance indulged in indiscriminate speculation when quantifying the degree of probability that Mrs Girardot would be recruited, although she had no right to be recruited.
Kommissionen er følgelig af den opfattelse, at Retten i den appellerede dom anvendte en omvendt fremgangsmåde i forhold til den korrekte retlige fremgangsmåde for at beregne en fortabt mulighed for ansættelse, eftersom den først beregnede det
Consequently, the Commission considers that in the judgment under appeal takes the opposite approach to the calculation of the loss of an opportunity to be recruited to that which is correct in law, since there was first a calculation of the loss of earn-
Opgørelsen af denne fortabte mulighed skal således ifølge Kommissionen ske på et andet grundlag end et løntab, da dette forudsætter en sikkerhed for ansættelse.
The quantification of that loss of opportunity ought to be based on something other than the loss of earnings, which presupposes that recruitment was a certainty.
Under disse omstændigheder har Kommissionen opfordret Domstolen til i henhold til artikel 61, første afsnit, andet punktum, i statutten for Domstolen at erklære, at der med rimelighed kan kompenseres for den mulighed for ansættelse, Marie-Claude Girardot har fortabt, ved tilkendelse af et fast beløb lig med tre måneders nettoløn, svarende til det beløb, hun ville have fået udbetalt i den opsigelsesperiode, der gælder for en tidsubegrænset kontrakt, dvs. i dette tilfælde 18 917,43 EUR, forhøjet med et fast beløb på 5 000 EUR med det formål at yde godtgørelse for den omstændighed, at den pågældende ikke længere kan deltage i en fremtidig ansættelsesprocedure.
In those circumstances, the Commission, in accordance with the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61of the Statute of the Court of Justice, invites the Court to declare that the loss of opportunity suffered by Mrs Girardot may be made good fairly by the award of a lump sum equivalent to three months’ net salary corres- ponding to the sum which would be paid to her during the notice period for a contract of indefinite duration — namely in this case EUR 18 917.43 — together with the sum, also a lump sum payment, of EUR 5 000 as compensation for the fact the person concerned may no longer take part in a later recruitment procedure.
Marie-Claude Girardot har gjort gældende, at appellen ikke kan antages til realitetsbehandling af to årsager.
Mrs Girardot contends that the appeal is inadmissible for two reasons.
For det første er Retten enekompetent til at vurdere det tab, der er forbundet med en fortabt mulighed.
Firstly, the Court of First Instance alone has jurisdiction to carry out an assessment of the damage resulting from the loss of an opportunity.
Kommissionen er således ikke — medmindre den foreholder Retten, at den ikke har specificeret de kriterier, den har lagt til grund for vurderingen af det lidte tab — beføjet til at anfægte den vurdering, der er foretaget heraf i den appellerede dom, og så meget desto mindre til at forvente, at Domstolen træffer en principiel afgørelse om den metode, der skal anvendes til at beregne godtgørelsen for det materielle tab, der forvoldes i anledning af en fortabt mulighed.
Accordingly, unless the Commission complains that the Court of First Instance did not specify the criteria adopted to carry out the assessment of the damage suffered, the Commission is not justified in criticising the assessment made in the judgment under appeal on that matter nor, a fortiori, in expecting the Court of Justice to issue a decision of principle on the method to be used to calculate compensation for material damage resulting from the loss of an opportunity.
Der foreligger i denne sammenhæng mange forskellige situationer, der kun kan undergives en konkret vurdering i hvert enkelt tilfælde.
Moreover, there are a vast number of different situations which can only be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
For det andet blev Kommissionens argument om, at Retten tilkendte godtgørelse for en fortabt sikkerhed for at opnå en stilling og ikke for en fortabt mulighed ikke fremsat for førsteinstansen, hvorfor der er tale om et nyt anbringende, der i henhold til artikel 42, stk. 2, og artikel 118 i Domstolens procesreglement ikke må fremsættes under sagens behandling.
Secondly, the ground of appeal to the effect that the Court of First Instance was providing compensation for the loss of a certainty of obtaining a post and not the loss of an opportunity was not raised at first instance and, consequently, represents a new ground of appeal, production of which is prohibited by Article 42(2) and Article 118 of the Rules of Procedure.
Med hensyn til sagens realitet har Marie-Claude Girardot under alle omstændigheder fremhævet, at det tab, hun har lidt, er faktisk og reelt, eftersom Kommissionens ulovlige afslag på at behandle hendes ansøgninger har berøvet hende muligheden for
In any event, as to the merits, Mrs Girardot states that the damage she has suffered is actual and certain since the Commission’s unlawful refusal to examine her applications deprived her of the chance, first, to have one or several of them accepted and secondly, to subsequently express her interest in any other post if she had still
Hvad angår det anførte om risikoen for forskelsbehandling mellem ansøgere til den samme stilling er det Marie-Claude Girardots opfattelse, at Kommissionen overser den anden del af Rettens ræsonnement, der netop har til formål at fastsætte den faktor, der skal anvendes på det konstaterede løntab, såfremt muligheden for ansættelse konkretiseredes.
As regards the complaint that there may be discrimination between candidates in the same recruitment exercise, Mrs Girardot considers that it ignores the second part of the reasoning of the Court of First Instance, the objective of which is precisely to determine the factor to be applied to the established loss of income in the event that the chance of being recruited had materialised.
Det er desuden ved samme grad af sandsynlighed for ansættelse rimeligt, at den ansøger, der har lidt et større løntab, modtager en større erstatning end den, der har lidt et mindre løntab.
Furthermore, it seems fair that, where the probability of recruitment is the same, the candidate who has suffered a greater loss of income should be awarded greater compensation than a candidate who has suffered a lesser loss of earnings.
Da disse ansøgere ikke befinder sig i en sammenlignelig situation, foreligger der ikke nogen tilsidesættelse af lighedsprincippet.
These candidates not being in comparable situations, the principle of equal treatment is not infringed.
Hvad for det første angår formalitetsindsigelsen om, at Domstolen ikke har kompetence til at vurdere, i hvilket omfang den af Marie-Claude Girardot lidte skade skal erstattes, bemærkes, at det fremgår af fast retspraksis, at alene Retten, når den har fastslået, at der er indtrådt et tab, har kompetence til inden for rammerne af den
As regards, first, the objection of inadmissibility on the ground that the Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to assess the extent of the reparation for the damage suffered by Mrs Girardot, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with settled case-law, when the Court of First Instance has found that there is damage, it is for that Court alone to assess, within the confines of the claim, how and to what extent
Selv om Kommissionen i denne sag ganske vist med sin appel har bestridt den metode, Retten anvendte til at fastslå, i hvilket omfang den skade, Marie-Claude Girardot har lidt, skal godtgøres, har den i denne sammenhæng imidlertid gjort gældende, at den appellerede dom er behæftet med flere retlige fejl, idet denne metode, som beskrevet i dommens præmis 58 og efterfølgende anvendt i dennes præmis 59-122, i virkeligheden indebærer en ændring af skadens karakter, således som den er blevet defineret i dommen, dvs. som en fortabt mulighed for ansættelse og følgelig en fordrejning af selve indholdet, således at det tab, der rent faktisk er fastslået i den appellerede dom, der efter Kommissionens opfattelse har karakter af en fortabt sikkerhed for ansættelse og det deraf følgende løntab, dels hverken er faktisk eller reelt, dels ikke har nogen årsagsforbindelse med den anfægtede ulovlighed.
However, in the present case, while it is true that the Commission disputes, by its appeal, the method used by the Court of First Instance to determine the extent of reparation for the damage suffered by Mrs Girardot, the Commission claims in that regard that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by several errors of law, in that the method in question, set out in paragraph 58 of that judgment and then applied in paragraphs 59 to 122 of that judgment, is equivalent, in reality, to an alteration of the form of the damage as it was described in that judgment, namely the loss of an opportunity to be recruited, and, consequently, to a misinterpretation of the essential nature of that damage, with the result that the damage actually determined in that judgment — according to the Commission, the loss of the certainty of being recruited and the loss of the corresponding remuneration — either is not actual or certain, or has no direct causal link with the alleged unlawful act.
Et sådant anbringende, der vedrører sammenhængen i den begrundelse, Retten har lagt til grund for at opstille den metode, der er anvendt til at fastslå, i hvilket omfang skaden skal erstattes, udgør imidlertid et retsspørgsmål, der kan prøves af Domstolen inden for rammerne af en appel (jf. i denne retning dommen i sagen Luccaccioni mod Kommissionen, præmis 27-29).
Such a ground of appeal, which concerns the coherence of the reasoning adopted by the Court of First Instance to establish the method used to determine the extent of the reparation for the damage suffered, is a question of law which may be brought on appeal to the Court of Justice (see, to that effect, Lucaccioni v Commission, cited above, paragraphs 27 to 29).
KOMMISSIONEN MOD GIRARDOT hvorpå en fortabt mulighed for at opnå ansættelse ved en fællesskabsinstitution skal beregnes i alle situationer, hvor en ansøger ulovligt er blevet berøvet sin ret til at få sin ansøgning behandlet.
COMMISSION v GIRARDOT to be recruited by a Community institution must be assessed in every situation where a party has been unlawfully deprived of the right to have his application examined.
Domstolens kompetence under en appel er nemlig begrænset til at tage stilling til den retlige afgørelse, der er blevet truffet vedrørende de anbringender, der er blevet behandlet i første instans (jf. dommen i sagen Kommissionen mod Brazzelli Lualdi m.fl., præmis 59).
In fact, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in an appeal is limited to review of the findings of law on the pleas argued before the Court of First Instance (see Commission v Brazzelli Lualdi and Others, cited above, paragraph 59).
Det følger heraf, at Domstolen kun er kompetent til under denne appel at efterprøve, om den metode, Retten har lagt til grund i den appellerede dom med henblik på at fastslå, i hvilket omfang den skade, Marie-Claude Girardot har lidt som følge af den fortabte mulighed, skal erstattes, er behæftet med en retlig fejl.
It follows that the Court of Justice has jurisdiction, in this appeal, solely to examine whether the method adopted by the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal for the purposes of determining the extent of the reparation for the damage suffered resulting from the loss of an opportunity suffered by Mrs Girardot is vitiated by an error of law.
I øvrigt afvises appellen.
The remainder of this appeal is inadmissible.
Det er fast retspraksis, at ved pådømmelsen af et af en tjenestemand fremsat krav om erstatning skal flere betingelser være opfyldt, for at Fællesskabet kan ifalde ansvar, idet de handlinger, institutionen kritiseres for at have begået, skal være ulovlige, der skal være lidt et tab, og der skal være årsagsforbindelse mellem handlingerne og tabet (jf. dom af 16.12.1987, sag 111/86, Delauche mod Kommissionen, Sml. s. 5345, præmis 30, dommen i sagen Kommissionen mod Brazzelli Lualdi m.fl., præmis 42, og dommen i sagen Rådet mod de Nil og Impens, præmis 23).
In accordance with settled case-law, in a claim for damages brought by an official the Community can be held liable for damages only if a number of conditions are satisfied: the illegality of the allegedly wrongful act committed by the institutions, actual harm suffered, and the existence of a causal link between the act and the damage alleged to have been suffered (see Case 111/86 Delauche v Commission [1987] ECR 5345, paragraph 30; Commission v Brazzelli Lualdi and Others, cited above, paragraph 42, and Council v De Nil and Impens, cited above, paragraph 23).