ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT
(Appeal Chamber)
5 May 2011
Case T‑402/09 P
Luigi Marcuccio
v
European Commission
(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and occupational disease for officials of the European Communities — Procedure for the recognition of the occupational origin of a disease — 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 20 July 2009 in Case F‑86/07 Marcuccio v Commission [2009] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑271 and II‑A‑1‑1467, seeking the annulment of that order.
Held: The appeal is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered, in addition to bearing his own costs, to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal.
Summary
1. Officials — Actions — Action for damages — Application for annulment of the pre-litigation decision dismissing the claim for damages
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
2. Officials — Psychological harassment — Definition — Conduct aimed at discrediting the person concerned or at impairing his working conditions
(Staff Regulations, Art. 12a(3))
3. Officials — Psychological harassment — Burden of proof — Obligation for the official concerned to provide prima facie evidence
(Staff Regulations, Art. 12a(3))
4. Appeal — Pleas in law — Review by the General Court of the assessment of the evidence by the Civil Service Tribunal — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11)
5. Appeal — Pleas in law — Review by the General Court of the assessment of information — Not included
(Art. 256(2) TFEU)
1. In civil service cases, the implied rejection of a claim for damages brought before the appointing authority has the effect only of enabling the party alleged to have suffered harm to bring a claim for damages before the Union judicature, without affecting the findings of the Civil Service Tribunal on the inadmissibility of the application for annulment of that rejection.
(see para. 23)
See: T‑77/99 Ojha v Commission [2001] ECR‑SC I‑A‑61 and II‑293, para. 68
2. Psychological harassment constitutes conduct which aims, on an objective view, at discrediting a colleague or at deliberately impairing his working conditions.
(see para. 35)
See: T‑73/05 Magone v Commission [2006] ECR‑SC I‑A‑2‑107 and II‑A‑2‑485, para. 79
3. An official who claims to have been the victim of psychological harassment is required to provide prima facie evidence of that harassment.
(see para. 39)
4. According to Article 11 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal to the General Court must be limited to points of law. The Civil Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to establish the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it, and to assess those facts. That appraisal does not, therefore, save where the clear sense of the evidence submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal has been distorted, constitute a point of law which is subject as such to review by the appeal court.
(see para. 43)
See: C‑449/99 P EIB v Hautem [2001] ECR I‑6733, para. 44; C‑121/01 P O’Hannrachain v Parliament [2003] ECR I‑5539, para. 35; judgment of 27 April 2006 in C‑230/05 P L v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 45
5. In its capacity as the court of first instance and as regards applications made by a party for measures of organisation of the procedure or enquiry, the Civil Service Tribunal is the sole judge of any need to supplement the information available to it in respect of the cases before it.
(see para. 50)
See: C‑315/99 P Ismeri Europa v Court of Auditors [2001] ECR I‑5281, para. 19