- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 October 2009. # Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities. # Public service - Officials. # Case F-3/08.
ECLI:EU:F:2009:135
62008FO0003
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
(Civil service – Officials – Refusal of an institution to translate a decision – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law – Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)
Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to send him an Italian translation of a previous decision, as well as an order that the Commission pay him damages.
Held: The applicant’s action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs. The applicant is ordered to pay the Tribunal the sum of EUR 1 000.
Summary
Officials – Administration's duty to have regard for the welfare of officials – Obligation to address to an official an individual decision worded in a language of which he has a thorough knowledge
(Art. 21 EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights, Art. 41(4); Rules of Procedure of the Commission, Annex, para. 4)
The institutions are under a duty to have regard for the welfare of their officials and therefore to address to an official an individual decision worded in a language of which he has a thorough knowledge.
It cannot be inferred from the third paragraph of Article 21 EC, or from paragraph 4 of the Code of good administrative conduct, or from Article 41(4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights that every decision addressed by a Community institution to one of its officials should be drawn up in the initial language of correspondence. Those provisions are applicable to relations between the institutions and their staff only where the latter address a document to the institutions solely in their capacity as citizens of the European Union and not in their capacity as officials or other staff of the Communities. If the institutions were obliged, in all events, to reply to a request from an official in the same language as that used in that request, it would result in insurmountable difficulties for the institutions.
(see paras 29-33)
See:
T-197/98 Rudolph v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑55 and II‑241, para. 46; T-118/99 Bonaiti Brighina v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑25 and II‑97, para. 13; T-95/04 Lavagnoli v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑121 and II‑A‑2‑569, para. 48
F‑51/05 and F‑18/06 Duyster v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, paras 58 and 59