Language of document : ECLI:EU:F:2011:164

(First Chamber)

28 September 2011

Case F‑6/11



European Medicines Agency (EMA)

(Civil service – Action for damages – Action manifestly inadmissible)

Application:      brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which M requests that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) be ordered to pay him damages for the loss which he allegedly sustained following an accident at work.

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


1.      Procedure – Admissibility of actions – Lodging of a plea of inadmissibility – Tribunal’s freedom to adopt an order on the basis of Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 76)

2.      Officials – Social security – Occupational accident – Fixed-sum compensation under the Staff Regulations – Claim for additional compensation under general law – Lawfulness – Conditions

(Staff Regulations, Arts 73 and 90(1))

1.      Even where a plea of inadmissibility has been raised by the defendant in a separate document, the Civil Service Tribunal remains at liberty, if the inadmissibility of the action appears manifest, to adopt an order on the basis of Article 76 of its Rules of Procedure.

(see para. 12)


25 November 2009, F‑5/09 Soerensen Ferraresi v Commission, para. 14

2.      A staff member who suffers an accident is entitled to seek from the administration additional compensation where he considers that the administration is responsible for the accident under general law and that the staff insurance scheme established by Article 73 of the Staff Regulations does not allow for appropriate compensation. However, in such a case, the administrative procedure which the staff member is required to follow in order to obtain such additional compensation must commence with the submission of a request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations seeking to obtain additional compensation, and must be followed, where necessary, by an administrative complaint directed against the decision rejecting the request.

(see para. 14)


8 October 1986, 169/83 and 136/84 Leussink v Commission, para. 13