ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Single Judge)
18 June 2013
Case F‑143/11
Luigi Marcuccio
v
European Commission
(Civil service — Rejection by the appointing authority of a request for payment of costs incurred in earlier proceedings — Annulment application having the same object as an application for taxation of costs — Manifest inadmissibility)
Application: by Mr Marcuccio pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, seeking amongst other things the annulment of the European Commission’s decision rejecting his request of 16 August 2011, and payment of the sum of EUR 3 316.31, together with late-payment interest and penalties, in respect of part of the costs incurred in the proceedings which led to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 February 2011 (Case F‑81/09 Marcuccio v Commission, presently on an appeal to the General Court in Case T‑238/11 P).
Held: The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Mr Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Summary
1. Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any legal basis — Scope
(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 76)
2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Application with the same purpose as a request for taxation — Inadmissibility
(Art. 270 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 92(1); Staff Regulations, Art. 91)
1. Under Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, where an action is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible, the Tribunal may, without taking further steps in the proceedings, give a decision by way of reasoned order.
Where, upon reading the case file, the formation of the Court considers that the documents on the file contain sufficient information, is fully satisfied that the application is manifestly inadmissible, and, furthermore, considers that no new matters would come to light if a hearing were to be held, it is not only in the interests of procedural economy, but also saves the parties the costs of a hearing, for the application to be dismissed by way of a reasoned order, pursuant to Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure.
(see paras 16-17)
See:
25 April 2012, F 108/11 Oprea v Commission, para. 12 and the case-law cited
2. European Union civil service law provides for a special procedure for the taxation of costs where the parties disagree on the amount and nature of the recoverable costs following a decision by which the Civil Service Tribunal brought proceedings to an end and made an order as to the costs. Thus, under the terms of Article 92(1) of its Rules of Procedure, if there is a dispute concerning the amount and nature of the costs to be recovered, the Civil Service Tribunal, on application by the party concerned and after hearing the opposing party, gives its decision by way of reasoned order.
Furthermore, the special procedure, laid down in Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure, concerning the taxation of costs, excludes any claim for the same sums, or sums expended for the same purposes, in connection with proceedings commenced pursuant to Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations. Thus an applicant may not bring an application, on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and Article 91 of the Regulations, which has, in reality, the same object as an application for taxation of costs. This is the case where the application seeks annulment of a decision rejecting a request by which the applicant had asked the appointing authority to reimburse a certain amount in respect of costs incurred for the purposes of proceedings.
(see paras 19-20, 22)
See:
16 July 2009, C‑440/07 P Commission v Schneider Electric
11 July 2007, T‑351/03 Schneider Electric v Commission, para. 297
10 November 2009, F‑70/07 Marcuccio v Commission para. 17; 20 June 2011, F 67/10 Marcuccio v Commission, para. 21, on appeal to the General Court under Case T‑475/11 P