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

24 September 2015

Case F‑92/14

Roderich Weissenfels

v

European Parliament

(Civil service — Officials — Action for compensation — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Content of an email sent by the administration to a retired official — Impugnment of the applicant’s honour — None — Communication by agents representing the institution of the applicant’s personal data to his lawyer in proceedings before the General Court — Infringement of Regulation No 45/2001 — False factual assertions)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Weissenfels seeks annulment of the European Parliament’s decision of 5 March 2014 rejecting his claim for compensation for the non-material harm which he claims to have suffered due to, first, assertions contained in an email sent to him by Parliament’s administration and, second, the communication of certain documents containing his personal data to his lawyer.

Held:      The action is dismissed. Mr Weissenfels is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

Summary

1.      Actions brought by officials — Jurisdiction of the Courts of the European Union — Limits — Application of national law — Not included

(Art. 270 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 1)

2.      Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Concept — Communication by agents representing an institution of an official’s personal data to his lawyer in judicial proceedings — Not included

(Art. 340, second para., TFEU)

1.      Under Article 1 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal is limited to disputes between the Union and its servants referred to in Article 270 TFEU, including actions for damages, within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union.

In that regard, in view of the fact that the Union judicature applies only EU civil service law and not national law when adjudicating on the civil service disputes for which it has jurisdiction, references made by a party to national law are irrelevant.

(see paras 17, 18)

2.      The forwarding by agents representing an institution of documents such as an official’s pension statements, in judicial proceedings, to a lawyer who is supposed to have the trust of the official or other staff member concerned and who, in any event, is required, as a result of the ethical requirements to which any lawyer is subject, to observe the possibly confidential nature of information received in the context of the authority granted to him, is not in any way unlawful.

(see para. 33)

See:

Orders of 6 February 2013 in Marcuccio v Commission, F‑67/12, EU:F:2013:12, paras 23 and 24 and the case-law cited therein, and 12 December 2013 in Marcuccio v Commission, F‑133/12, EU:F:2013:212, paras 38 to 40