Corte di giustizia UE/1994

61993B0515 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 28 March 1994 ( *1 ) (Officials — Absence of pleas in law — Inadmissibility) [OSCURATO:PERSONA]515/93, B, an official of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by [OSCURATO:PERSONA], of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], 14 A Rue des Bains, applicant, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by [OSCURATO:PERSONA], of its [OSCURATO:PERSONA], acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], of its [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], defendant, APPLICATION for the annulment of the list published on 11 September 1992 of those considered most worthy of promotion to Grade A 4, and for an order that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] pay compensation for the harm suffered, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of: R. Garcia-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], B. Vesterdorf and J. Biancarelli, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: H. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and procedure 1 The applicant, B, is an official in Grade A 5 at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 2 On 10 December 1992 he submitted a complaint under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 90(2) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Officials of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’) contesting the failure to include him in the list of officials considered most worthy of promotion to Grade A 4. That list was published on 11 September 1992 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 734. In his complaint the applicant claims that his staff report contained very good marks and laudatory comments by his immediate superior who, in the general appreciation, furthermore expressed the hope of seeing the applicant promoted to Grade A 4 at the earliest opportunity. 3 On 16 June 1993 the applicant received a letter from the Director-General for Personnel and Administration explicitly rejecting his complaint. 4 The applicant thereupon brought the present action by application lodged at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 16 September 1993. 5 The application contains a section headed ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] and procedure’ which sets out briefly the course of the administrative procedure in this case. 6 The section of the application headed ‘Law’ is worded as follows: ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] has already admitted that, in the light of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 45 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the applicant's name should have been included in the list of those considered most deserving promotion to the Grade A 4 in 1992 ahead ofthat of the other official who was included but was not promoted. On these grounds, the applicant requests the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: (1) to declare the present application admissible and founded; (2) to annul the list of those considered most deserving of promotion to the Grade A 4 that was published on 11 September 199[2]; (3) to condemn the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the applicant compensation in whatever amount the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers appropriate; (4) to condemn the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the applicant's costs.’ 7 By a separate document the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] raised an objection of inadmissibility on 25 October 1993 in which it contended that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: ‘— declare the present application inadmissible; — condemn the applicant to pay his own costs’. 8 On 26 November 1993 the applicant submitted his observations on the objection of inadmissibility in which he requested the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: ‘(1) to declare the present application admissible and founded; (2) to annul the list of those considered most deserving of promotion to the Grade A 4 that was published on 11 September 1992; (3) to condemn the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the applicant compensation in whatever amount the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers appropriate; (4) to condemn the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the applicant's costs; (5) to stay all further proceedings in the case until after the promotions to A 4 in the 1993 exercise have been decided (at which time the. applicant may be in a position to withdraw the application as pointless)’. Admissibility 9 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers that the application is manifestly inadmissible because it does not comply with the requirements in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 44(l)(c) of the Rules of Procedure which provides that an application is to state the subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. It contends that the few lines of the section headed ‘Law’, cited above, do not enable it to assess the pleas in law on which the applicant is founding his application, or to understand what basis there may be for the form of order sought by him. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] refers to the case-law of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 19/60, 21/60, 2/61 and 3/61 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [1961] ECR 281, 294 and 295 ; order of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in [OSCURATO:PERSONA]85/92 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [1993] [OSCURATO:PERSONA]-523 ). In any event, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers that the claim for compensation made by the applicant in his application was not put forward in the complaint and is therefore inadmissible. 10 In support of his application the applicant observes that he has clearly referred to an infringement of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 45 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and also claimed that his staff report, which pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 45 should have been compared with those of the other candidates for promotion, was better than the reports of the two officials who were proposed for promotion. 11 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] observes that, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 114 of its Rules of Procedure, a party applying to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for a decision on the admissibility of the application without going to the substance of the case must make the application by a separate document. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may consider that there is no need to open the oral procedure and may give a decision on the application by reasoned order. In the present case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers that it is sufficiently informed by the documents before it and decides that it is not necessary to take any further steps in the proceedings. 12 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] observes that, under the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 19 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the EEC, which is applicable to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] pursuant to the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 46 of that Statute, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 44(1 )(c) of the Rules of Procedure, an application is to state the subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers that, irrespective of questions of terminology, the presentation of those matters must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to exercise its review. In order to ensure legal certainty and the proper administration of justice, if an action is to be admissible under the abovementioned provisions, the essential factual and legal elements upon which the action is based must be apparent, at the very least in summary form, but coherently and comprehensibly, from the application itself (see the judgments of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice in [OSCURATO:PERSONA]347/88 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Greece [1990] ECR I-4747, paragraph 28 , and in [OSCURATO:PERSONA]52/90 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Denmark [1991] ECR I-2187, paragraph 17 et seq .; see also the order of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in [OSCURATO:PERSONA]85/92 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA], cited above, paragraph 20). 13 More particularly, according to the order in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], although it must be accepted that the statement of the pleas in law on which the action is based need not conform with the terminology or the list in the Rules of Procedure and it may be sufficient for those pleas to be presented in terms of their substance rather than of their legal classification, that is however on condition that those pleas are sufficiently clear from the application. Furthermore, a mere abstract statement of the pleas in the application does not satisfy the requirements of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the EEC or the Rules of Procedure and the words ‘ a brief statement of the grounds’ and ‘a summary of the pleas in law’ used in those instruments mean that the application must specify the nature of the plea in law on which the application is based (judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], cited above, and order in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], cited above, paragraph 21). 14 In the present case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] finds that the application does not contain, either in its factual section, or in its section entitled ‘Law’, a statement, even in summary form, of the pleas in law or matters of law relied on in support of the action. As the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has correctly stated, the section entitled ‘Law’, cited above, does not enable it to assess the pleas on which the applicant founds his application, or to understand what basis there may be for the form of order sought by him. Accordingly, it does not enable the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to draw up its defence properly. In those circumstances, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers that the application, in the form submitted to it for its appraisal, does not enable it to exercise its review of either the legality of the contested decision or the cogency of the applicant's claim for compensation. 15 It follows from all the foregoing that the application does not satisfy the minimum requirements for the admissibility of an action under the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 19 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the EEC and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 44(l)(c) of the Rules of Procedure. The action must therefore be dismissed as inadmissible. Costs 16 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 88 of those Rules provides that in proceedings brought by servants of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] the institutions are to bear their own costs. However, that provision is without prejudice to costs held to have been unreasonably or vexatiously caused within the meaning of the second subparagraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 87(3) of those Rules. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers that the last-mentioned provision of the Rules of Procedure ought to be applied where an action is brought in the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the applicant must be ordered to pay the whole of the costs. On those grounds, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible. 2. The applicant shall pay the whole of the costs. Luxembourg, 28 March 1994. H. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] R. Garcia-[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ( *1 ) Language of the case: English.