ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Second Chamber)

23 April 2015

Case F‑54/14

François Vainker

v

European Parliament

(Civil service — Officials — Recruitment of a legal advisor to the Parliament — Rejection of application — Action for annulment — Termination of service on the date when action was brought — No interest in bringing proceedings — Action for damages — Unspecified claim for compensation — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Vainker seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Parliament Bureau of 9 September 2013 appointing Mr X to the post of legal advisor to the Parliament and, second, the fixing of an amount of damages to compensate the applicant for the various breaches of administrative duty noted.

Held:      The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Mr Vainker is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

Summary

1.      Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — To be evaluated at the time when the action is brought — Appointment decision — Action for annulment brought by an official who retired before the action was brought — Inadmissibility — Action for damages — Admissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2.      Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Clear and precise summary of the pleas in law relied on — Application seeking compensation for damage caused by an institution

(Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 35(1)(d) and (e))

1.      For an official or former official to be able to bring an action under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations seeking annulment of a decision of the appointing authority making an appointment, he must have a personal interest in having the contested decision annulled and such an interest presumes that the claim should be capable, by its result, of securing an advantage for him. As a condition of admissibility, the applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings must be evaluated at the time the action is brought.

A former official who has retired at the time when he brings his action, and is thus no longer a member of the European Union civil service, would no longer be in a position, should the Civil Service Tribunal annul the appointment decision, to apply for the contested post, since he would no longer satisfy one of the eligibility criteria laid down in the vacancy notice, that is, that he must be an official. Consequently, given that he is no longer able to apply for the contested post when he brings his action, the former official does not have a personal interest in having the appointment decision annulled, since that annulment could not secure an advantage for him.

The fact that the former official was retired at his own request, before reaching the age when he would have been retired automatically, does not call that finding into question. It is clear from a reading of Article 47(f) in conjunction with Article 52(b) of the Staff Regulations that early retirement granted at the request of the person concerned results in termination of service. The consequences of such retirement are therefore the same as those of resigning.

Although the former official no longer has a legitimate interest in having the appointment decision annulled, he does, however, still have an interest in seeking a ruling on that appointment in connection with a claim for compensation for the material and non-material damage which he considers that he has suffered owing to the various breaches committed by his administration.

(see paras 17-19, 22, 25)

See:

Judgment in Del Plato v Commission, 126/87, EU:C:1989:115, paras 18 to 20

Judgments in Marcato v Commission, T‑82/89, EU:T:1990:77, para. 54; Moritz v Commission, T‑20/89, EU:T:1990:80, para. 15; Latham v Commission, T‑82/91, EU:T:1994:14, paras 24 to 26; Moat v Commission, T‑41/95, EU:T:1996:87, para. 26; Contargyris v Council, T‑6/96, EU:T:1997:76, para. 32, and Combescot v Commission, T‑250/04, EU:T:2007:262, para. 28

Judgment in Commission v Q, T‑80/09 P, EU:T:2011:347, para. 156 and the case-law cited therein, and order in Attey and Others v Council, T‑118/11, T‑123/11 and T‑124/11, EU:T:2012:270, para. 28

2.      Pursuant to Article 35(1)(d) and (e) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, an application must state, among other things, the subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law relied on. In order to satisfy those requirements, an application seeking compensation for damage caused by an EU institution must contain information identifying the conduct which the applicant alleges against the institution, the reasons why he considers that a causal link exists between that conduct and the damage which he claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage. A claim for any unspecified form of damages, on the other hand, is not sufficiently concrete and must therefore be regarded as inadmissible.

The requirements of Article 35(1)(d) and (e) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal are not satisfied by an application in which the applicant does not allege that he has suffered damage or harm, such as non-material harm or loss of earnings, does not state whether the compensation claimed is for material or non-material damage or both, does not quantify the amount of the harm allegedly suffered and does not state sufficiently precisely the facts enabling the nature and extent of that damage to be assessed.

(see paras 26, 27)

See:

Judgment in Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt v Council, 5/71, EU:C:1971:116, para. 9

Orders in Osorio v Commission, T‑505/93, EU:T:1994:76, para. 33, and Moat v Commission, T‑112/94, EU:T:1995:31, para. 32

Judgment in N v Commission, F‑95/05, EU:F:2007:226, para. 86