ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

3 May 2012

Case F‑44/05 RENV

Guido Strack

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Claim for damages for the excessive duration of the proceedings before the Court — Lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal — Referral back to the General Court of the European Union)

Application:      brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Strack essentially seeks annulment of the decision rejecting his candidature for the post of head of the ‘Calls for tender and contracts’ unit of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, annulment of the decision to appoint Mr A. to that post, and an order that the Commission should pay compensation for the non-material damage he allegedly suffered.

Held: The claim for damages for the excessive duration of the judicial proceedings, submitted by the applicant in paragraphs 78 to 85 of the statement of written observations lodged on 21 February 2011 and set out in paragraph A.4 of the forms of order sought in that statement, is referred back to the General Court of the European Union. The costs relating to that claim are reserved.

Summary

1.      Officials — Actions — Actions for damages — Origin — Employment relationship — Legal basis

(Art. 270 TFEU)

2.      Procedure — Division of jurisdiction between the various courts of the European Union — Claim for damages for the excessive duration of the judicial proceedings — Lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal — Referral back to the General Court

(Art. 256(1), first para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 73)

1.      A dispute between an official and the institution by which he is or was employed concerning compensation for damage is pursued under Article 270 TFEU only where it originates in the relationship of employment between the person concerned and the institution.

(see para. 8)

See:

12 May 2011, F‑50/09 Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission, para. 116 and the case-law cited therein, on appeal before the General Court of the European Union, Case T‑401/11 P

2.      The Civil Service Tribunal manifestly lacks jurisdiction to decide on a claim for damages brought by a former official for the excessive duration of the proceedings, in so far as the judicial proceedings are concerned, without prejudice to any other claims for compensation brought. The damage alleged does not originate in the employment relationship between the applicant and his institution, but rather in the delay in adjudicating that could allegedly be attributed to the Courts of the Union, which the applicant claims is a breach of his right to an effective remedy.

In that regard, under Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, an action which falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice or the General Court must be referred back to those Courts, and since an application is merely the vehicle for a series of claims, any claim having independent substance may be regarded as constituting an action within the meaning of Article 73. Furthermore, it follows from the first paragraph of Article 256(1) TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that the General Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine at first instance actions or proceedings for damages brought by individuals where those actions or proceedings do not originate in an employment relationship between the person concerned and the institution by which he is or was employed.

(see paras 9-10)