Language of document : ECLI:EU:F:2013:8


(Third Chamber)

29 January 2013

Case F‑79/12

Karel Brus


European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Statement of the grounds on which the application is based — Action manifestly inadmissible)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, whereby Mr Brus seeks annulment of the decisions of the European Commission of 29 September 2011 respectively dismissing him and reducing the amount of his retirement pension, following the disciplinary proceedings initiated for failure to fulfil his obligations under the Staff Regulations.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.


Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Clear and precise statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 35(1)(e))

Pursuant to Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, an application must contain the pleas in law and the arguments of fact and law relied on. Those pleas and arguments must be presented in a sufficiently clear and precise fashion to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Tribunal to rule on the application, if necessary without any further information. In order to ensure legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, it is necessary, in order for an action to be admissible, that the essential matters of law and fact relied on are stated, at least in summary form, but coherently and intelligibly, in the application itself.

(see para. 19)


15 September 2011, F‑102/09 Bennett and Others v OHIM, para. 115; 1 February 2012, F‑123/10 Bancale and Buccheri v Commission, para. 38; 8 March 2012, F‑12/10 Kerstens v Commission, para. 68