ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)

18 February 2009

Case F-70/07

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Action for damages – Taxation of costs – Manifest lack of jurisdiction – Referral pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Annex to the Statute of the Court of Justice – Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio essentially seeks an order that the Commission pay compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the refusal to reimburse him in respect of the recoverable costs purportedly incurred in order of 6 March 2006 in Case T-176/04 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR.

Held: The action is referred back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in so far as concerns the taxation of the recoverable costs relating to Case T‑176/04. The remainder of the action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The costs of the action are reserved in so far as the action relates to the taxation of the recoverable costs relating to Case T‑176/04. Each party is to bear its own costs relating to the remainder of the application.

Summary

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Court having jurisdiction

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 92(1))

A claim seeking the annulment of a contested decision and of the decision rejecting a complaint lodged against that contested decision, as well as a claim seeking an order that an institution pay an official a sum of money with default interest and the capitalisation of interest, the actual aim of which is to obtain payment by the institution of recoverable costs relating to an action which the Court of First Instance has concluded and for which an order as to the costs has been made, must be regarded, in view of their purpose, as an application for taxation of costs. Since, under Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, such an application should have been made to that Court, the Civil Service Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to rule on the abovementioned claims.

In that respect, it is for the court alone to assess and not for the parties to decide on the precise legal characterisation of the claims in an action for the purpose of determining whether the court has jurisdiction to consider them.

(see paras 16-18)