Corte di giustizia UE/2014

62013FO0068(01)_EN [OSCURATO:PERSONA] part [OSCURATO:PERSONA] F‑68/13, ACTION brought pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 36.2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], annexed to the EU Treaty and to the FEU Treaty, CY, member of staff of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], last residing in Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers, applicant, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (ECB), represented by E. Carlini and F. Feyerbacher, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, defendant, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) composed of S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], E. Perillo and J. Svenningsen (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: W. Hakenberg, makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1. By application received at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 9 July 2013, CY sought, in essence, first, the annulment of the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (ECB) of 18 December 2012 closing the internal administrative inquiry opened following her complaint of psychological harassment and the annulment of that inquiry and of the inquiry report drawn up once it had finished and, secondly, the grant of EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by her, essentially in connection with the conduct of her line manager. 2. The parties were heard in their oral submissions and in their answers to questions put by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] at the hearing on 21 May 2014. The oral procedure was closed on that date. 3. The parties were then informed, on 9 July 2014, that the judgment bringing the proceedings to an end would be delivered on 17 September 2014. 4. By letter of 13 August 2014, counsel for the defendant informed the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the death of the applicant, which occurred on 11 July 2014. By email of 3 September 2014, counsel for the applicant confirmed that information to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 5. Accordingly, by order of 9 September 2014, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] reopened the oral procedure under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure then in force, so that, having regard to the case-law (see, to that effect, orders in Boyes v Commission , T‑81/98, EU:T:1999:305, paragraphs 5 to 7, and Barbin v Parliament , T‑228/11 P, EU:T:2012:701), the applicant’s legal successors could state whether they wished to resume the proceedings. 6. By letter of 7 October 2014 from counsel for the late applicant, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was informed that the sole legal successor did not wish to resume the proceedings. By letter of 7 October 2014 from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the defendant was invited to submit its observations on that information. By letter of 13 October 2014, the defendant informed the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] that it had no observations on the alleged discontinuance, but repeated the claim set out in the defence that the applicant be ordered to pay the costs. 7. By letter of 14 October 2014, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] informed the parties of its intention, having regard to the special circumstances of the present case, to close the proceedings by means of an order, adopted under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 85(1) of its Rules of Procedure, that there is no longer any need to adjudicate, under which the costs were in its discretion, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103(6) of those rules. 8. By letter of 15 October 2014, counsel for the applicant stated that they had no objection to the application of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103(6) of the Rules of Procedure, given that the legal successor of the late applicant had expressed her wish not to resume the proceedings. By letter of 20 October 2014, the defendant, essentially, withdrew its initial claim seeking that the applicant be ordered to pay the costs, pointing out that, in the circumstances of the present case, it would be appropriate for each party to bear its own costs. 9. Having regard to the foregoing, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] finds that, given that the legal successor of the late applicant is not resuming the proceedings, the present action has become devoid of purpose and that, consequently, there is no further need to adjudicate on it (order in Barbin v Parliament , EU:T:2012:701, paragraph 9). Costs 10. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103(6) of the Rules of Procedure, where a case does not proceed to judgment the costs are to be in the discretion of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 11. In the circumstances of the present case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] finds that it is appropriate for each party to bear its own costs. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] part On those grounds, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1. There is no longer any need to rule on the action. 2. Each party is to bear its own costs. Luxembourg, 5 November 2014.