ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Third Chamber)

30 June 2011

Case F‑14/10

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Social security — Accident — Procedure for recognising permanent partial invalidity under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Duration of procedure — Action for damages — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)

Application:      brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Marcuccio essentially seeks an order that the Commission compensate him for the material and non-material damage he claims to have suffered as a result of the unreasonable duration of the procedure for recognition, under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, of permanent partial invalidity following a non-occupational accident which he sustained on 12 September 2003.

Held:      The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. The applicant is ordered to bear, as well as his own costs, the costs incurred by the Commission. The applicant is ordered to refund the Tribunal the sum of EUR 1 000 under Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure.

Summary

Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Medical opinion — Duty to act within a reasonable time

(Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, Arts 19 and 21)

The reasonableness of the duration of an administrative procedure must be appraised in the light of the circumstances specific to each case and, in particular, its context, the various procedural stages followed by the institution, the conduct of the parties in the course of the procedure, the complexity of the case and its importance for the various parties involved.

As far as concerns the civil service, the institution is responsible for the speed at which the doctors work whom it appoints to issue findings as provided for in Articles 19 and 21 of the Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease. However, in so far as it is proved that a delay is ascribable to the dilatory or obstructive conduct of the official, the institution must not be held responsible for that delay.

(see paras 49, 50)

See:

17 December 1998, C‑185/95 P Baustahlgewebe v Commission, para. 29; 16 July 2009, C‑385/07 P Der Grüne Punkt-Duales System Deutschland v Commission, paras 181 to 188

22 October 1997, T‑213/95 and T‑18/96 SCK and FNK v Commission, para. 57; 11 April 2006, T‑394/03 Angeletti v Commission, para. 154

1 July 2010, F‑97/08 Füller-Tomlinson v Parliament, para. 167, on appeal before the General Court of the European Union, Case T‑390/10 P