ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

25 March 2010

Case F‑47/08

Willy Buschak

v

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

(Civil service — European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions — Job description of the post of deputy director — Action for annulment — Action for damages — Interest in bringing proceedings — Manifestly inadmissible)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Buschak seeks, first, annulment of the decision amending the job description of the post of deputy director of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) and, in so far as is necessary, annulment of the decision rejecting his complaint, and second, an order that Eurofound pay him damages of EUR 5 000.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.

Summary

1.      Officials — Actions — Interest in bringing proceedings

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2.      Officials — Actions — Claim for compensation linked to a claim for annulment

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

3.      Officials — Actions — Action for damages brought without a prelitigation procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

1.      In order for an official or former official to be able validly to bring proceedings under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, he must have a personal interest in the annulment of the contested measure. Moreover, assessment of that interest in bringing proceedings must be made not in the abstract, but with regard to the situation of the applicant at the time when proceedings are brought.

In so far as a staff member’s job description only affects his interests, as a rule, while he is employed in that post, an action for annulment of a decision amending that job description, brought by the staff member after his employment in that post has ceased, is inadmissible except where the applicant can prove that there are special circumstances justifying a current, personal interest in bringing proceedings for that purpose.

(see paras 25, 27)

See:

T‑97/94 N v Commission [1998] ECR‑SC I‑A‑621 and II‑1879, paras 23 and 26; T‑200/03 and T‑313/03 V v Commission [2006] ECR‑SC I‑A‑2‑15 and II‑A‑2‑57, para. 181

F‑3/05 Schmit v Commission [2006] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑9 and II‑A‑1‑33, paras 41 and 42; F‑114/05 Combescot v Commission [2006] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑115 and II‑A‑1‑435, paras 44 and 46; F‑44/05 Strack v Commission [2008] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑303 and II‑A‑1‑1609, para. 74

2.      In actions brought by officials, a claim for compensation for damage must be rejected where it is closely related to a claim for annulment which has itself been rejected either as inadmissible or as unfounded.

(see para. 33)

See:

T‑1/91 Della Pietra v Commission [1992] ECR II‑2145, para. 34; T‑330/03 Liakoura v Council [2004] ECR‑SC I‑A‑191 and II‑859, para. 69; T‑73/05 Magone v Commission [2006] ECR‑SC I‑A‑2‑107 and II‑A‑2‑485, para. 103

F‑5/06 E v Commission [2006] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑93 and II‑A‑1‑337, para. 57; F‑104/06 Arpaillange and Others v Commission [2009] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑57 and II‑A‑1‑273, para. 137

3.      Where the alleged damage does not arise out of the act whose annulment is sought but from a series of alleged wrongful acts and omissions on the part of the administration, it is mandatory that the pre-litigation procedure should commence with a request for the appointing authority to make good that damage.

(see para. 39)

See:

T‑17/90, T‑28/91 and T‑17/92 Camara Alloisio and Others v Commission [1993] ECR II‑841, para. 47; T‑25/03 de Stefano v Commission [2005] ECR‑SC I‑A‑125 and II‑573, para. 78

Schmit v Commission, para. 48