ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

7 October 2013

Case F‑57/12

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Disability allowance — Deduction of the amount of the debt owed to an institution — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any basis in law)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Marcuccio essentially seeks annulment of the decision of the European Commission to deduct a total of EUR 1 661 from the disability allowances paid to him for the months of June, July, August and September 2011, and compensation for the harm suffered as a result of that deduction.

Held:      The application is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any basis in law. Mr Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the interim proceedings in Cases F‑57/12 R and T‑464/12 P(R). Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the Tribunal the sum of EUR 2 000.

Summary

1.      Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state reasons — Decision adopted in circumstances known to the addressee

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.)

2.      Judicial proceedings — Court costs — Costs incurred by the Civil Service Tribunal as a result of an action which is an abuse of process by an official — Order for the official to refund those costs

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 94(a))

1.      The purpose of the obligation to state the reasons on which a decision adversely affecting an official is based is to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to determine whether the decision is well founded or whether it is defective in such a way that its legality may be challenged, and to enable the Union judicature to exercise its review of the legality of the contested decision. The reasons given for a decision are sufficient if the measure forming the subject-matter of the action was adopted in circumstances which are known to the official concerned and enable him to understand its scope.

(see paras 30-31)

See:

7 October 2009, F‑3/08 Marcuccio v Commission, para. 27 and the case‑law cited therein; 1 December 2010, F‑89/09 Gagalis v Council, para. 67 and the case‑law cited therein

2.      Under Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, if the Tribunal has incurred avoidable costs, in particular where the action is manifestly an abuse of process, it may order the party who caused such costs to be incurred to refund them in whole or in part, but the amount of that refund may not exceed EUR 2 000. An action manifestly wrongfully takes up the Tribunal’s resources where the applicant fails to mention any information relating to the reason for an institution’s decisions which the institution had, however, supplied to him, and of which he was aware before bringing the action.

(see paras 55-56)