ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT
(Appeal Chamber)

4 April 2011

Case T‑239/09 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Refusal by an institution to open an inquiry — Pre-litigation procedure — Action for damages — 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 31 March 2009 in Case F‑146/07 Marcuccio v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑69 and II‑A‑1‑363, seeking annulment of that order.

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

Summary

1.      Appeal — Pleas in law — Inadequate statement of reasons — Scope of the obligation to state reasons

(Art. 225a EC)

2.      Officials — Actions — Subject-matter — Instruction to the administration — Inadmissibility

(Article 233 EC; Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

3.      Officials — Actions — Action for damages — Origin — Employment relationship — Legal basis

(Article 236 EC; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

4.      Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions

5.      Appeal — Pleas in law — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 138(1)(c))

1.      The Civil Service Tribunal’s obligation to state reasons must be regarded as satisfied if the contested order shows the reasoning it followed, so that the General Court is able to conduct its judicial review.

(see para. 24)

See: C‑204/00 P, C‑205/00 P, C‑211/00 P, C‑213/00 P, C‑217/00 P and C‑219/00 P Aalborg Portland and Others v Commission [2004] ECR I‑123, para. 372; C‑3/06 P Groupe Danone v Commission [2007] ECR I‑1331, para. 46; judgment of 4 October 2007 in C‑311/05 P Naipes Heraclio Fournier v OHIM, not published in the ECR, paras 51 and 52

2.      It is not for the Union judicature to give instructions to the administration in the context of its review of legality on the basis of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations. If an act is annulled, the institution concerned is required, under Article 233 EC, to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment.

(see para. 31)

See: judgment of 19 November 2009 in T‑49/08 P Michail v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 73 and the case‑law cited therein

3.      A dispute between an official and the institution which employs or employed him concerning compensation for damage is pursued, where it originates in the employment relationship between the person concerned and the institution, under Article 236 EC and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations and therefore lies outside the sphere of application of Articles 235 EC and 288 EC.

(see para. 32)

See: 401/85 Schina v Commission [1987] ECR 3911, para. 9

4.      In an application for damages brought by an official, the institution can be held liable only if a number of conditions are satisfied as regards the illegality of the allegedly wrongful act, the actual harm suffered and the existence of a causal link between the act and the damage alleged to have been suffered. The three conditions giving rise to the liability of the institution are cumulative, which means that, if one of them is not met, the liability of the institution does not arise.

(see para. 60)

See: T‑256/02 I v Court of Justice [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑289 and II‑1307, para. 50 and the case‑law cited therein

5.      It follows from Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 138(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the order which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal.

An appeal which merely repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal, including those based on facts expressly rejected by that Tribunal, does not satisfy those requirements. Such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application already submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the General Court.

(see para. 62)

See: C‑196/03 P Lucaccioni v Commission [2004] ECR I‑2683, paras 40 and 41, and the case‑law cited therein