(Civil service – Officials – Amicable settlement – Performance of an agreement – Refusal to reimburse expenditure in connection with a mission – Manifest inadmissibility – No legal interest in bringing proceedings – Apportioning costs – Unreasonable and vexatious costs)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Steinmetz seeks, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 21 February 2006 not to give full effect to an agreement which formed part of the amicable settlement reached between the parties in Case T-155/05, which was brought before the Court of First Instance, and, second, payment of symbolic damages of EUR 1 for the non‑pecuniary harm he alleges.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs, with the exception of an amount of EUR 500. In addition to its own costs, the Commission is ordered to bear the applicant’s costs in the sum of EUR 500.

Summary

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 114)

1.Just as the admissibility of an action must be judged by reference to the situation prevailing when the application was lodged, the admissibility of other pleadings, such as a plea of inadmissibility, must be judged at the time when they are submitted. Such an interpretation ensures respect for the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.

(see para. 27)

See: 50/84 Bensider and Others v Commission [1984] ECR 3991, para. 8

T-236/00 R II Stauner and Others v Parliament and Commission [2001] ECR II‑2943, para. 49; T-219/01 Commerzbank v Commission [2003] ECR II‑2843, para. 61

2.Where, in a dispute before the Tribunal, an applicant proposes an amicable settlement to a defendant institution, the institution accepts part of that proposal and, on the basis of that partial acceptance, the applicant successfully requests that the Tribunal remove the case from the register, the official concerned must be regarded as having accepted the agreement finally proposed by the institution and therefore has no interest in disputing the content of that agreement on the pretext that it does not correspond to his initial proposal.

Where an institution has met all of the commitments arising from an agreement reached in a dispute between itself and an applicant, that applicant has no interest in complaining that the institution did not comply with the terms of that agreement.

(see paras 44-52)