ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Third Chamber)

6 February 2013

Case F‑67/12

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Action for damages — Unlawfulness — Letter relating to the implementation of a judgment sent to the lawyer representing the applicant in the appeal against that judgment — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, whereby Mr Marcuccio seeks, first, annulment of the decision whereby the European Commission dismissed the request for compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the Commission having sent a letter relating to the procedure for implementation of the judgment of the Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F‑41/06 Marcuccio v Commission (‘the judgment of 4 November 2008’) to the lawyer who represented him in the appeal lodged against that judgment and, second, an order that the Commission pay damages for the harm allegedly thereby sustained.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. The applicant is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission. Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the Tribunal the sum of EUR 2 000.

Summary

1.      Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — One of the conditions not satisfied — Dismissal of action in its entirety

(Art. 340 TFEU, second para.)

2.      Judicial proceedings — Court costs – Costs incurred by the Civil Service Tribunal where action brought by an official is an abuse of process — Order that the official refund those costs

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 94)

1.      The European Union may incur non-contractual liability for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU only if three cumulative conditions are satisfied, namely the unlawfulness of an administrative act or of conduct of which the institutions are accused, the occurrence of actual damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct alleged and the harm relied on. The fact that one of those three conditions is not satisfied is sufficient for an action for damages to be dismissed.

(see para. 21)

See:

16 March 2011, F‑21/10 Marcuccio v Commission, paras 22 and 23 and the case-law cited

2.      Under Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, if the Tribunal has incurred avoidable costs, in particular where the action is manifestly an abuse of process, it may order the party who caused such costs to be incurred to refund them in whole or in part, but the amount of that refund may not exceed EUR 2 000.

It is appropriate to apply that provision where the action brought by an official has a purpose wholly similar to actions brought by the same official which have been held to be manifestly lacking any foundation in law. That action is clearly unreasonable and vexatious, as the applicant has chosen to bring proceedings without any justification.

(see paras 34-37)

See:

14 April 2011, C‑460/10 P Marcuccio v Court of Justice

17 May 2006, T‑241/03 Marcuccio v Commission, para. 65

6 July 2010, T‑401/09 Marcuccio v Court of Justice; 15 November 2012, T‑286/11 P Marcuccio v Commission

6 December 2007, F‑40/06 Marcuccio v Commission, para. 50; F‑21/10 Marcuccio v Commission; 29 February 2012, F‑3/11 Marcuccio v Commission, para. 54