ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)
20 January 2011 (*)
(Action for damages – Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court – Reference to the Civil Service Tribunal)
In Case T‑136/10,
M, residing in Broxbourne (United Kingdom), represented by C. Thomann, Barrister, and I. Khawaja, Solicitor,
applicant,
v
European Medicines Agency (EMA), represented by V. Salvatore and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents,
defendant,
ACTION for damages, under Articles 268 TFEU and 340 TFEU, for loss allegedly sustained as a result of an accident at work,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber),
composed of S. Papasavvas, President, V. Vadapalas and K. O’Higgins (Rapporteur), Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Background to the dispute
1 The applicant, who entered the service of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) on 16 October 1996 as a member of the temporary staff, sustained an accident at work on 17 March 2005, after which he went on sick leave.
2 The applicant’s contract with the EMA expired on 15 October 2006, since the EMA decided not to renew it.
3 From November 2006 to November 2009 the applicant was in receipt of unemployment benefit from the Commission of the European Communities.
4 On 26 June 2007, pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’), the applicant was offered a lump sum payment of EUR 22 078.95 under accident insurance. Regarding that amount as insufficient, the applicant brought an appeal under the insurance scheme provided for in the Staff Regulations and finally obtained in December 2009 a payment of EUR 60 000.
Procedure and forms of order sought
5 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 16 March 2010, the applicant brought the present action.
6 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 7 June 2010, the EMA raised an objection of inadmissibility pursuant to Article 114(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. In that objection, it observed, as a preliminary point, that the European Union Civil Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine at first instance disputes between the European Union and its servants.
7 As the applicant was late in submitting his observations on that objection of inadmissibility, under Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure, those observations were not placed on the file.
8 In the application, the applicant claims that the Court should:
– order the EMA to pay him damages, in an amount which the Court may rule to be appropriate, in compensation for the loss sustained as a result of the accident at work on 17 March 2005;
– order the EMA to pay him interest on the amount due at a rate equivalent to that applied pursuant to section 35A of the Supreme Court Act 1981 or such other sum as the Court may rule to be appropriate;
– order the EMA to pay the costs;
– order such additional measures as the Court may consider to be appropriate.
9 In the objection of inadmissibility the EMA contends that the Court should:
– dismiss the application as inadmissible;
– order the applicant to pay the costs.
The jurisdiction of the General Court
10 Article 8(2) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union provides that where the Civil Service Tribunal finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action in respect of which the Court of Justice or the General Court has jurisdiction, it is to refer that action to the Court of Justice or to the General Court. Likewise, where the Court of Justice or the General Court finds that an action falls within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal, the Court seised is to refer that action to the Civil Service Tribunal, whereupon that Tribunal may not decline jurisdiction.
11 It is therefore for the court before which the action has been brought to determine whether it has jurisdiction and, if appropriate, to refer the action, in accordance with the procedure specifically prescribed for that purpose, to the court of first instance, which may not decline jurisdiction (judgment of 4 September 2008 in Case T‑413/06 P Gualtieri v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 25; see also, by analogy, order of 27 May 2004 in Case C‑517/03 Commission v IAMA Consulting, not published in the ECR, paragraphs 13, 21 and 22).
12 It should moreover be noted that, according to consistent case-law, a dispute between an official and the institution to which he is or was answerable concerning compensation for damage is pursued, where it originates in the relationship of employment between the person concerned and the institution, under Article 270 TFEU and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations and lies outside the sphere of application of Articles 268 TFEU and 340 TFEU (Case 9/75 Meyer‑Burckhardt [1975] ECR 1171, paragraph 7 and see Case T‑254/02 L v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑63 and II‑277, paragraph 139 and case-law cited).
13 In this case, it is apparent from the application that the applicant is seeking compensation for loss allegedly sustained as a result of an accident at work on 17 March 2005 whilst he was employed as a temporary member of the staff of the EMA. In addition, the applicant claims that that accident was caused by the EMA’s breach of its duty of care to him and its failure to comply with its obligations under European Union health and safety law, and in particular the obligations laid down in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1), Article 3 of Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (OJ 1989 L 393, p. 13), point 15 of the Annex to Council Directive 89/654/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace (OJ 1989 L 393, p. 1), and the corresponding provisions of United Kingdom law. It must be stated that Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations provides that officials in active employment are to be accorded working conditions complying with appropriate health and safety standards at least equivalent to the minimum requirements applicable under measures adopted in these areas pursuant to the Treaties. It must therefore be held that the present case originates in the relationship of employment between Mr M and the EMA.
14 It should be noted in that regard that, under Article 1 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, as amended by Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (OJ 2004 L 333, p. 7), it is the Civil Service Tribunal which is to exercise at first instance jurisdiction in disputes between the Union and its servants referred to in Article 270 TFEU, including disputes between all bodies or agencies and their servants in respect of which jurisdiction is conferred on the Court of Justice of the European Union.
15 It must therefore be concluded that this action falls within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal. As a consequence, the case must be referred to the Tribunal in accordance with Article 8(2) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is referred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.
2. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 20 January 2011.