Language of document : ECLI:EU:F:2013:212


(Second Chamber)

12 December 2013

Case F‑133/12

Luigi Marcuccio


European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Compensation for the damage resulting from the fact that a letter was sent by the institution to the applicant’s lawyer concerning costs the applicant had been ordered to pay — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, first, annulment of the decision by which the European Commission rejected his request for compensation for the fact that a letter was sent to the lawyer who had represented him before the Courts of the European Union since June 2007 (‘the applicant’s lawyer’ or ‘his lawyer’) concerning payment of the costs relating to 24 cases which have become final in which he was ordered to pay the Commission’s costs and, secondly, that the Commission be ordered to pay him damages.

Held:      The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. Mr Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the Tribunal the sum of EUR 2000.


1.      Actions brought by officials — Action for damages — Application for annulment of the pre-litigation decision rejecting the request for compensation — Application not independent of the claim for damages

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

2.      Judicial proceedings — Legal costs — Costs incurred by the Civil Service Tribunal as a result of an action which is an abuse of process by an official — Order for the official to refund those costs

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

1.      The claim for annulment of the measure containing an institution’s view with regard to compensation during the pre-litigation phase cannot be assessed separately from the claim for damages since the effect of that measure is solely to permit those claims to be brought before the Civil Service Tribunal.

(see para. 32)


14 October 2004, T‑256/02 I v Court of Justice, para. 47 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.

An action is manifestly an abuse of process where an applicant has opted to bring legal proceedings for no good reason and has already, in several cases, put forward pleas and grounds of complaint that are similar, even identical, to those submitted in support of the action at issue, and those pleas have been rejected by an order, in all the cases brought by the applicant, as being manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded in law.

(see paras 52-54)