ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)
23 March 2010
Case T-16/09 P
Luigi Marcuccio
v
European Commission
(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Reasonable time for the submission of a claim for compensation — Lateness — 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) in Case F-87/07 Marcuccio v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-351 and II-A-1-1915, seeking the annulment of that order.
Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present case.
Summary
1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Inadequate statement of reasons
(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.)
2. Officials — Actions — Request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations
(Art. 236 EC; Staff Regulations, Art. 90(1))
3. Officials — Actions — Time-limits — Claim for compensation addressed to an institution
(Art. 236 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46; Staff Regulations, Art. 90)
4. Officials — Actions — Time-limits — Claim for compensation addressed to an institution — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Criteria for assessment
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46; Staff Regulations, Art. 90)
5. Procedure — Admissibility of pleadings — Assessed when pleading is submitted
(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 121)
6. Procedure — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Service of application by registered post — Date of service setting time-limits running
(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 39(1) and 100(1), first subpara., (2), third subpara., and (3))
1. The obligation to state reasons does not require the Civil Service Tribunal to provide an account which follows exhaustively and one by one all the arguments put forward by the parties to the case and the reasoning may therefore be implicit on condition that it enables the persons concerned to know why the Civil Service Tribunal has not upheld their arguments and provides the General Court with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review.
(see paras 21, 38)
See: C‑294/00 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-167/06 P Komninou and Others v Commission [2007] ECR I-141, para. 22; C‑385/07 P Der Grüne Punkt – Duales System Deutschland v Commission [2009] ECR I‑6155 , para. 114
2. Where a dispute between an official and the institution by which he is or was employed concerning compensation for damage originates in the relationship of employment between that person and the institution, it falls under Article 236 EC and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations.
The fact that Article 236 EC and Article 90 of the Staff Regulations lay down no time-limit for the submission of a claim for compensation for damage does not render unlawful the obligation to submit such a claim within a reasonable time. The application of those provisions, in particular to a claim for compensation for damage, must comply with the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, which are general principles of Community law. In the absence of any written rule, those general principles preclude institutions and natural or legal persons from acting without any time-limits, thereby threatening, inter alia, to undermine the stability of legal positions already acquired, and they require that action be taken within a reasonable time.
Consequently, a challenge, beyond a reasonable time-limit, to an event which resulted in damage caused by the Community in the context of its relations with its staff affects the certainty of legal relations between the Community and its staff and imposes on the Community budget costs arising from an operative event which occurred too long ago. The principle of legal certainty therefore requires that staff claiming compensation as a result of damage allegedly caused to them by the Community in the context of their relations with it must submit their claims within a reasonable period.
(see paras 32-35)
See: T‑281/01 Huygens v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑203 and II‑903, para. 47; T‑45/01 Sanders and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II‑3315, para. 59; T‑144/02 Eagle and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II‑3381, paras 57 and 62; T-114/08 P Marcuccio v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I-B-1-53 and II-B-1-313, para. 12 and the case-law cited therein
3. Where a dispute between an official and the institution by which he is or was employed concerning compensation for damage originates in the relationship of employment between that person and the institution, it falls under Article 236 EC and not Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. The five-year limitation period laid down in the latter provision is therefore not the criterion for assessing the reasonableness of the time-limit at issue, but is at the very most a relevant element of comparison in that assessment, given that that limitation period is also designed to guarantee legal certainty in actions for damages brought against the Community. The fact that a claim was brought less than five years from the date when the persons concerned were apprised of the situation of which they complain is therefore not enough for that claim to be considered to have been brought within a reasonable time.
(see para. 37)
See: Eagle and Others v Commission, para. 68; Marcuccio v Commission, para. 12
4. The determination of the time-limit for bringing an action for damages is a point of law. In the absence of a time-limit laid down in the regulations applicable for bringing a claim for compensation arising from the employment relationship between an official and the institution by which he is employed, that claim must be brought within a reasonable time, which is determined in the light of the circumstances of the case. In that respect, while the Civil Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to establish and assess the relevant facts except where those facts are clearly distorted, it then defines their legal nature with regard to the principle that decisions should be adopted within a reasonable time, subject to review by the General Court.
(see para. 39)
See: Marcuccio v Commission, para. 27
5. Procedural rules are generally held to apply to all disputes pending at the time when they enter into force. Furthermore, the admissibility of an action is assessed at the time when it is brought, and the admissibility of other pleadings should be assessed at the time when they are submitted. Consequently, it is in the light of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, which came into force, pursuant to Article 121 of those rules, on 1 November 2007, that the admissibility of a defence lodged with the Registry of the Civil Service Tribunal on a subsequent date must be assessed.
(see para. 59)
See: 212/80 to 217/80 Meridionale Industria Salumi and Others [2001] ECR 2735, para. 9; 50/84 Bensider and Others v Commission [1984] ECR 3991, para. 8; T‑42/96 Eyckeler & Malt v Commission [1998] ECR II‑401, para. 55; T‑236/00 R II Stauner and Others v Parliament and Commission [2001] ECR II‑2943, para. 49; T‑25/04 González y Díez v Commission [2007] ECR II‑3121, para. 58; judgment of 3 April 2008 in T-229/02 PKK v Council, not published in the ECR, para. 30
6. Where the Registry of the Civil Service Tribunal serves an application on a defendant by registered post, the date of service which sets the time-limits running is that on which the defendant acknowledged receipt of the registered letter addressed to him.
(see paras 63-64)
See: C‑442/03 P and C‑471/03 P P & O European Ferries (Vizcaya) and Diputación Foral de Vizcaya v Commission [2006] ECR I‑4845, para. 26