ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Sixth Chamber)
5 November 2008 (*)
(Arbitration clause – Contract concluded by the Commission and the Université Libre de Bruxelles for the Community financing of a research project – Contract of employment concluded by the Université Libre de Bruxelles and the applicant – Manifest lack of jurisdiction)
In Cases T‑213/08 and T‑213/08 AJ,
Daniela Marinova, residing in Sofia (Bulgaria), represented by G. Stratiev Georgiev, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Université Libre de Bruxelles
and
Commission of the European Communities,
defendants,
ACTION in contractual liability brought on the basis of an arbitration clause contained in Contract No 038950 (MEIF CT/2007 038950) concluded by the Commission and the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) for the Community financing of a research project,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Sixth Chamber),
composed of A.W.H. Meij (Rapporteur), President, V. Vadapalas and L. Truchot, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Facts and procedure
1 In the context of the ‘Marie Curie Incoming International Fellowships’, one of the Marie Curie actions within the framework of the specific technological research and development programme termed ‘Structuring ERA’, the Commission, acting on behalf of the European Communities, concluded a contract with the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) on 14 April 2007 for the Community financing of a research project entitled ‘Active Structures with Smart Materials: Modelling, Control, Numerical Simulation and Experimental Validation’ (Contract No 038950 (MEIF CT/2007 038950)). Annex I to that contract designates Professor Preumont as the person in charge of the research project, and the applicant as a researcher.
2 The contract contains a clause conferring jurisdiction on the Community courts to rule on any dispute arising between the Community and the ULB as regards the validity, performance or interpretation of that contract.
3 On 31 August 2007 and 5 October 2007, the ULB concluded two contracts of employment – the first for a period of three months and the second for a period of nine months – with the applicant, who had been recruited as a researcher with a view to carrying out the above research project, financed by the Community (‘the contract of employment’).
4 By letter of 19 December 2007, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Commission concerning the content and the performance of the contract of employment. By letter of 11 February 2008, the Commission replied essentially that, according to the information it had received from the ULB, the applicant had the usual contract of employment with comprehensive social benefits. The Commission added that, when the project came to an end, it would check that the ULB had paid the applicant using the share of the Community financial contribution provided for under Contract No 038950 (part D of Annex I) for the work performed by the applicant. Lastly, for further questions relating to the contract of employment, the Commission suggested to the applicant that she contact the ULB directly. Following a second complaint from the applicant dated 10 March 2008, the Commission replied by letter of 14 April 2008.
5 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 8 June 2008, the applicant brought the present action.
6 By separate document lodged on the same day, the applicant applied for adjudication under the expedited procedure.
7 By letter of 25 August 2008, the applicant applied for legal aid under Article 95 of the Rules of Procedure.
Forms of order sought by the applicant
8 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– order the ULB to pay her the amounts owing to her under Contract No 038950 (MEIF CT/2007 038950);
– order the ULB and the Commission jointly to pay her the sum of EUR 100 000 by way of damages for the loss and the lost earnings suffered on account of the fact that the applicant had not been given an opportunity to make full use of her skills in the performance of the project in question financed by the European Community;
– order the ULB and the Commission jointly to pay her the sum of EUR 30 000 by way of damages for non-pecuniary loss;
– designate an expert to determine inter alia the overall amount owed by the ULB to the applicant under Contract No 038950 (MEIF – CT/2007 038950);
– order the ULB and the Commission to pay the costs.
Law
9 Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, where it is clear that the Court of First Instance 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 of First Instance may, by reasoned order, without taking further steps in the proceedings, give a decision on the action.
10 The Court considers that, in the present case, it has sufficient information from the evidence in the file and holds, pursuant to that provision of the Rules of Procedure, that there is no need to take further steps in the proceedings.
11 In the present case, the applicant is seeking a ruling from the Court of First Instance on the obligations under the contract of employment and on the alleged failure by the Commission to fulfil its monitoring obligation under Contract No 038950, referred to above. She claims that that Community financing contract concluded by the ULB and the Commission gave rise to reciprocal rights and obligations between, on the one hand, the ULB and the Commission, and on the other, herself.
12 In particular, the applicant claims that Annex I to that contract between the ULB and the Commission designates her as a researcher in the project in question and that Annex III to that contract places the ULB under a certain number of obligations in relation to the applicant for the duration of the project. She alleges that the ULB seriously disregarded those obligations. Moreover, following two complaints lodged by the applicant with the Commission, the Commission merely suggested that the applicant contact the ULB directly. In so doing, the Commission failed in its obligation to ensure proper performance of the project and compliance with the provisions of Contract No 038950, referred to above.
13 It should be noted that the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance is specified in Article 225 EC and Article 140a EA, as further refined in Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. Under those provisions, the Court of First Instance may adjudicate at first instance on contractual disputes only where these are brought before it on the basis of an arbitration clause. Otherwise, it would be exercising jurisdiction beyond the limits placed by Article 240 EC on the disputes of which it may take cognisance, since that article specifically gives national courts or tribunals ordinary jurisdiction over disputes to which the Community is a party (order in Case T-186/96 Mutual Aid Administration Services v Commission [1997] ECR II-1633, paragraph 47). Its jurisdiction to adjudicate on such contractual disputes represents a derogation from the ordinary rules of law and must therefore be given a restrictive interpretation (Case 426/85 Commission v Zoubek [1986] ECR 4057, paragraph 11).
14 The case-law has also recognised that only the parties to a contract containing an arbitration clause may be parties to an action brought on the basis of Article 238 EC (order in Case T-245/04 Commission v Lior and Others [2008] ECR II-0000, paragraph 112; see also, to that effect, Case 23/76 Pellegrini v Commission [1976] ECR 1807, paragraph 31).
15 In the present case, the Community financing contract between the Commission and the ULB for the research project in question (Contract No 038950) contains an arbitration clause conferring jurisdiction on the Community courts to take cognisance of disputes relating to the validity, performance or interpretation of that contract.
16 That arbitration clause therefore applies only to the contractual relations between the parties to that contract, namely the Commission and the ULB. In particular, the fact that – as observed by the applicant – Contract No 038950 requires the ULB to comply with a certain number of specific obligations in relation to the applicant in her capacity as a researcher for the project in question does not affect the fact that, in that context, the only party contractually linked to the ULB is the Commission.
17 It follows, first of all, that the arbitration clause contained in Contract No 038950 cannot properly be relied upon by the applicant in an action in contractual liability against the Commission. Accordingly, the Court of First Instance manifestly lacks jurisdiction to take cognisance of the present action in so far as it was brought against the Commission.
18 Nor, secondly, can the applicant rely on that arbitration clause in a dispute with the ULB, to which she is bound by the contract of employment. The contract of employment, which was concluded with the applicant in performance of Contract No 038950, was not concluded by the Community or on its behalf, but by the ULB. In consequence, it could not contain an arbitration clause conferring jurisdiction on the Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 238 EC; nor does it contain such a clause.
19 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the Court of First Instance manifestly lacks jurisdiction to take cognisance of the present action both in so far as that action was brought against the Commission and in so far as it was brought against the ULB. The action must therefore be dismissed in its entirety.
20 In those circumstances, there is no need to rule on the applicant’s request for adjudication under the expedited procedure or on the applications for measures of organisation of procedure.
21 Moreover, since the present action is manifestly inadmissible, the application for legal aid submitted by the applicant must be dismissed, pursuant to Article 94(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
Costs
22 Since the present order is being made before the notification of the application to the defendants and before they have been able to incur costs, it is sufficient that the applicant be ordered to bear her own costs, in accordance with Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
On those grounds,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Sixth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed.
2. The application for legal aid is dismissed.
3. The applicant shall bear her own costs.
Luxembourg, 5 November 2008.