ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

17 December 2010

Case T-38/10 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Non-contractual liability — Reimbursement of recoverable expenses — Availability of a parallel remedy — Procedural defects — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

Appeal: against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 10 November 2009 in Case F‑70/07 Marcuccio v Commission [2009] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑423 and II‑A‑1‑2293, seeking to have that order set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

Summary

1.      Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Specific procedure precluding the use of proceedings for liability

(Art. 236 EC; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 92(1); Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2.      Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c))

1.      The specific procedure for seeking taxation of costs, provided for in Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, excludes any claim for the same sums, or sums expended for the same purposes, in connection with proceedings alleging non-contractual liability of the Union. The application of that principle in an action alleging liability of a Union institution as the applicant’s employer does not constitute an infringement of Articles 90 or 91 of the Staff Regulations, since the relationship which exists between the parties under the Staff Regulations is independent of the fact that the legislature introduced, on the taxation of costs, a specific procedure laid down in Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, which applies without exception in actions in staff cases.

(see paras 27-28)

See: T‑214/00 X v Commission [2001] ECR‑SC I‑A‑143 and II‑663, paras 37 and 38; T‑351/03 Schneider Electric v Commission [2007] ECR II‑2237, para. 297, partly annulled on appeal by C‑440/07 P Commission v Schneider Electric [2009] ECR I‑6413

2.      Under the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which applies to the procedure before the General Court pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, and under Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, an application is required to contain, inter alia, a summary of the pleas in law on which it is based. It must accordingly specify the nature of the grounds on which the action is based and, in consequence, a mere abstract statement of the grounds does not satisfy the requirements of the Statute of the Court of Justice or the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. Moreover, that summary — albeit concise — must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court 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 — if an action or, more specifically, a plea in law is to be admissible — that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself. In that respect, it is not the task of the Court to search through all the matters relied on in support of a first plea in order to ascertain whether those matters could also be used in support of a second plea.

(see para. 45)

See: T‑224/00 Archer Daniels Midland and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients v Commission [2003] ECR II‑2597, para. 36; T‑322/01 Roquette Frères v Commission [2006] ECR II‑3137, paras 208 and 209; T‑308/05 Italy v Commission [2007] ECR II‑5089, paras 72 and 72