(Officials – Action for damages – Admissibility – Exposure to asbestos – Occupational disease – Damage)

Full text in French II - 0000

Application:for damages for the physical harm and the non-material, professional and financial loss allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Held:The action is dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Summary

1.Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Implied decision rejecting a request not challenged within the time-limits – Subsequent express decision – Confirmatory act – Time-barred

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2.Officials – Actions – Action for damages – Claim for annulment of a pre-litigation decision refusing a request for compensation – Claim cannot be assessed in isolation from claims for compensation

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

3.Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Conditions – Fault on the part of the administration – Damage – Causal link – Cumulative conditions

4.Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Lump-sum compensation under the staff insurance scheme – Request for additional compensation under general law – Whether permissible – Conditions

(Staff Regulations, Art. 73)

5.Officials – Social security – Insurance against accidents and occupational disease – Invalidity – Definition – Inability to lead a normal working life – Emotional incapacity – Included

(Staff Regulations, Art. 73)

6.Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Procedural requirements – Summary of the pleas in law relied upon

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1))

7.Officials – Actions – Pleas in law – Misuse of powers – Definition

1.A decision expressly rejecting a complaint, taken after the prescribed period for bringing an appeal against the implied decision rejecting the complaint has elapsed, can constitute an actionable measure adversely affecting an official only if it contains a re-examination of the applicant’s situation in the light of new elements of law or of fact. A decision expressly rejecting a complaint which does not contain any new elements in relation to the legal or factual situation existing at the time of the implied rejection is purely confirmatory and not capable of having an adverse effect and cannot, therefore, have the effect of setting a fresh time-limit.

(see para. 49)

See:T-108/99 Reggimenti v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC I-A-243 and II-1205, para. 35; T-338/00 and T-376/00 Morello v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-301 and II-1457, paras 34 and 35

2.An institution’s decision rejecting a claim for compensation forms an integral part of the preliminary administrative procedure which precedes an action to establish liability before the Court of First Instance and, consequently, claims for annulment of it cannot be assessed in isolation from the claims relating to compensation. The measure setting out the position adopted by the institution during the pre-litigation stage only has the effect of allowing the party who has suffered damage to apply to the Court for compensation.

(see para. 56)

See:T-90/95 Gill v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-471 and II-1231, para. 45; T-77/99 Ojha v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-61 and II-293, para. 68; T‑209/99 Hoyer v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-243 and II-1211, para. 32

3.In an application for damages brought by an official, the Community can be held liable only if a number of conditions are satisfied as regards the illegality of the allegedly wrongful act of the institutions, the actual harm suffered and the existence of a causal link between the act and the damage alleged to have been suffered and the burden of proving that all those conditions have been met falls to the applicant. The three conditions giving rise to the liability of the Community are cumulative, which means that, if one of them is not met, the liability of the Community does not arise.

(see paras 58-59)

See:C-136/92 P Commission v Brazzelli Lualdi and Others [1994] ECR I-1981, para. 42; C-257/98 P Lucaccioni v Commission [1999] ECR I-5251, para. 14; T‑205/96 Bieber v Parliament [1998] ECR-SC I-A-231 and II-723, para. 48; T‑165/95 Lucaccioni v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-203 and II-627, para. 57

4.Officials are entitled to seek compensation in addition to the benefits received under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations where the institution is responsible for the accident or occupational disease according to ordinary law and the benefits payable under the staff insurance scheme are insufficient to provide full compensation for the injury suffered. Such lump-sum compensation cannot, however, lead to double compensation for the harm suffered. In this sense, the two compensation schemes are not independent.

(see para. 62)

See:169/83 and 136/84 Leussink and Others v Commission [1986] ECR 2801, paras 10 to 14; C-257/98 P Lucaccioni v Commission, cited above, paras 19 to 22

5.The concept of invalidity under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations covers the inability to lead a normal working life, including the emotional aspects thereof. It follows that there is nothing to prevent the doctor appointed by the institution or a medical committee, in the procedure for recognition of an occupational disease, from taking account of the non-material damage suffered by an official when engaged in his professional activity where that damage renders him unable to lead a normal working life.

(see para. 92)

6.Under Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the application must contain a summary of the pleas in law on which it is based. That summary must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the action, if necessary without any other supporting information. The application must therefore specify the nature of the grounds on which it is based and, accordingly, a mere abstract statement of the grounds does not satisfy the requirements of the Rules of Procedure.

(see para. 120)

See:T-102/92 Viho v Commission [1995] ECR II-17, para. 68; T-352/94 Mo och Domsjö v Commission [1998] ECR II-1989, para. 333

7.The concept of misuse of powers has a precisely defined scope and refers to cases where an administrative authority has used its powers for a purpose other than that for which they were conferred on it. A decision may amount to a misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent evidence, to have been taken for purposes other than those stated.

(see para. 123)

See:C-121/01 P O’Hannrachain v Parliament [2003] ECR I-5553, para. 46; T‑104/96 Krämer v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-151 and II-463, para. 67