ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

8 May 2014

Case F‑50/13

A

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Social security — Accident or occupational disease — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Permanent partial invalidity — Application for compensation — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which A brought the present action essentially seeking an order that the European Commission compensate him for the material and non-material losses which he suffered as a result of his occupational disease.

Held:      The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

1.      Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Flat-rate compensation under the scheme laid down in the Staff Regulations — Claim for further compensation brought before the end of the procedure under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Art. 73)

2.      Judicial proceedings — Costs — Burden — Taking into account of the requirements of equity

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 87(2))

1.      An official who is the victim of occupational disease is only entitled to claim further compensation in accordance with the general law when the scheme governed by the Staff Regulations laid down in Article 73 of those Regulations does not allow appropriate compensation to be paid. Consequently, and as a general rule, an official’s claim for compensation for the material damage and non-material harm caused to him by an occupational disease is not admissible until the procedure commenced under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations has been concluded.

(see para. 32)

See:

15 December 1999, T‑300/97 Latino v Commission, para. 94

13 January 2010, F‑124/05 and F‑96/06 A and G v Commission, paras 151 and 152

2.      Under Article 87(2) of its Rules of Procedure, the Civil Service Tribunal may, if equity so requires, decide that an unsuccessful party is to pay only part of the costs or even that he is not to be ordered to pay any.

In a situation where an unlawful act committed by the administration, which was declared unlawful in an annulling judgment, has led to the inadmissibility of a claim for compensation that could not, for procedural reasons, be submitted in the action which resulted in the annulling judgment, the circumstances of the case are such that each party should bear its own costs.

(see paras 39, 40)