ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

12 December 2013

Case F‑58/12

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Decision to retire an official on grounds of invalidity — Annulment by the Tribunal on the ground of failure to state reasons — Request for implementation of the judgment — Request for reinstatement — Judgment of the Tribunal set aside — No interest in bringing proceedings — Article 266 TEU — Non-contractual liability of the institution — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, in essence, annulment of the decision by which the European Commission rejected his request of 25 March 2011 for reinstatement and compensation for the harm suffered.

Held:      The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law. Mr Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

1.      Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for a vested and present interest — Assessment as at the date on which the action is brought — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2.      Actions brought by officials — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Obligation to implement — Scope

(Art. 266 TFEU)

1.      For an official or former official to be able, within the framework of an action brought under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, to seek the annulment of an act which adversely affects him, within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, he must have, at the time he brings the action, a vested and present interest, which is sufficiently established to have that act annulled, such an interest assuming that the action is likely, if successful, to benefit him.

(see para. 23)

See:

29 November 2006, T‑35/05, T‑61/05, T‑107/05, T‑108/05 and T‑139/05 Agne-Dapper and Others v Commission and Others, para. 35 and the case-law cited

11 September 2013, T‑475/11 P Marcuccio v Commission, paras 13 to 18

2.      In order to comply with the obligation laid down in Article 266 TFEU, it is for the institution concerned to take the measures required in order to give effect to a judgment delivered in an action for annulment, exercising, subject to review by the European Union Courts, the discretion it has for this purpose, complying with both the operative part and grounds of the judgment it is required to give effect to and the provisions of EU law.

With regard to enforcement of a judgment annulling a decision to retire an official on grounds of invalidity due to failure to state reasons and the adoption, where appropriate, of a new, duly reasoned decision on grounds of invalidity, it is in the first place for the institution concerned to determine the state of health of that official.

(see paras 33- 34)

See:

19 October 2006, T‑503/04 Pessoa e Costa v Commission, paras 69 and 70 and the case-law cited