ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
5 September 2006(*)
(Action for failure to act – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Manifest lack of jurisdiction – Manifest inadmissibility)
In Case T-144/06,
Catherine O’Loughlin, residing in Athens (Greece), represented by G. Nathanail, lawyer,
applicant,
v
European Ombudsman,
and
Ireland,
defendants,
ACTION for a declaration of, firstly, the alleged infringement of Community law by the Irish authorities and, secondly, the failure to act on the part of the Ombudsman when dealing with an alleged failure to take action by the Commission,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
composed of H. Legal, President, I. Wiszniewska-Białecka and E. Moavero Milanesi, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Facts and procedure
1 The applicant attempted, without success, to obtain from the Irish Medical Council recognition of professional medical qualifications which she had acquired in Greece. Since she had failed to obtain that recognition, in 1997 the applicant filed a complaint with the Commission of the European Communities; in 1999, and again in 2003, she lodged a petition with the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions.
2 On 6 June 2004, the applicant made a complaint to the Ombudsman against both the Commission, which she criticised for having mishandled its investigation into the alleged infringement of Community law by the Irish authorities, and the Parliament, for having closed its investigation without permitting her to appeal its decision or to have access to the file.
3 By letter of 13 July 2004, the Ombudsman informed the applicant that he had no power to investigate that part of the complaint concerned with the decision of the Parliament’s Committee on Petitions.
4 In his decision of 24 March 2006 on the complaint against the Commission, the Ombudsman concluded that there had been no maladministration on the part of that institution.
5 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 8 May 2006, the applicant brought the present action against Ireland and the European Ombudsman.
Form of order sought by the applicant
6 The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should :
– order the High Court of Ireland to interpret and uphold the right to a judicial remedy against the decision of the Irish Medical Council;
– give a ruling on the Ombudsman’s decision not to take action against the Commission.
Law
7 As set out in Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, where it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of an action or where the action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the Court may, by reasoned order, and without taking any further steps in the proceedings, give a decision on the action.
8 In this instance, the Court considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the file and has decided, pursuant to that article, to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.
9 In the present case, the applicant seeks a ruling from the Court concerning the obligation upon the Irish authorities to ensure that the Irish courts uphold Community law by recognising the professional qualifications which she obtained in Greece. She also seeks a declaration from the Court that the Ombudsman failed to act in that he failed to take action against the Commission.
10 Firstly, with regard to the formal requirements for an application initiating proceedings, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to proceedings before the Court of First Instance by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 of that statute, and Article 44(1)(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure, the application must set out, inter alia, the subject-matter of the dispute, the form of order sought and a brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based. Those particulars 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 guarantee legal certainty and sound administration of justice, it is necessary, in order for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (orders in Case T-85/92 De Hoe v Commission [1993] ECR II-523, paragraph 20, and Case T-154/98 Asia Motor France and Others v Commission [1999] ECR II-1703, paragraph 49; judgment in Case T‑277/97 Ismeri Europa v Court of Auditors [1999] ECR II-1825, paragraph 29).
11 In this instance, those requirements have not been met. The applicant merely states, without providing any further particulars, that, firstly, through its courts, Ireland infringed Community law and that, secondly, the Ombudsman wrongly failed to take action against the Commission, yet she does not identify the directives which Ireland allegedly failed to implement. In addition, the basic legal factors on which the action is based are not identified clearly in the application itself. Further, the form of order sought by the applicant is not formulated in a clear and unequivocal fashion. The result of these findings is that the subject-matter of the dispute, the brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based and the form of order sought by the applicant are not sufficiently substantiated to enable the Court to give a decision.
12 Accordingly, the application fails to meet the minimum requirements laid down by Article 44(1)(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure.
13 Furthermore, to the extent to which the action is brought against Ireland and seeks a declaration that Ireland, through its courts, infringed Community law relating to the recognition of professional qualifications obtained in another Member State, it is to be noted that the Court's powers are those set out in Article 225 EC and in Article 140a EA, as specified by Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. Under those provisions, the Court does not have jurisdiction in actions brought by individuals against Member States.
14 In this instance, it would appear that the source of the conduct complained of is neither a Community institution nor a Community body.
15 Finally, in so far as the action seeks a declaration that the Ombudsman unlawfully failed to act, it is clear from the case-law that the Ombudsman is not a Community institution within the meaning of Article 232 EC, with the result that the application, to the extent to which it refers to a failure to act on the part of the Ombudsman, must be declared inadmissible (order in Case T-103/99 Associazione delle Cantine Sociali Venete v European Ombudsman and European Parliament [2000] ECR II-4165, paragraph 46).
16 It follows from the foregoing that the present action must be dismissed on the basis that it is manifestly inadmissible and the Court clearly has no jurisdiction, without it being necessary to serve it on the defendant.
Costs
17 As the present order was adopted prior to service of the application on the defendant and before the latter could have incurred costs, it is sufficient to decide that the applicant must bear her own costs, pursuant to Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
On those grounds,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
hereby orders:
1. The application is dismissed.
2. The applicant shall bear her own costs.
Luxembourg, 5 September 2006