You are on page 1of 2

DECISION OF THE COURT (special Chamber provided for in Ar icle !"#b of he R$les of %roced$re& ' Febr$ar( ")!!

(Revie*& In Case C+!,-!! R./ %RO%OSA0 TO RE1IE2 made b( he Firs Advoca e 3eneral/ $nder Ar icle 4" of he S a $ e of he Co$r of 5$s ice of he E$ropean Union/ on !" 5an$ar( ")!!/ THE COURT (special Chamber provided for in Ar icle !"#b of he R$les of %roced$re of he Co$r &/ composed of 16 S7o$ris/ %residen / A6 Ti88ano (Rappor e$r&/ 56N6 C$nha Rodri9$es/ :6 0enaer s and 56+C6 ;onicho / %residen s of Chambers/ ma7es he follo*in9 Decision ! The proposal o revie* made b( he Firs Advoca e 3eneral concerns he <$d9men of he 3eneral Co$r of he E$ropean Union (Appeal Chamber& of !4 December ")!) in Case T+!=#-)> % Commission v Petrilli/ in *hich he 3eneral Co$r dismissed he appeal bro$9h b( he Commission of he E$ropean Comm$ni ies a9ains he <$d9men of he E$ropean Union Civil Service Trib$nal (Second Chamber& of "> 5an$ar( "))> in Case F+>'-), Petrilli v Commission6 " The <$d9men *hose revie* is proposed alle9edl( sho*s a diver9ence in he case+ la* of he 3eneral Co$r of he E$ropean Union *i h re9ard o he condi ions 9overnin9 he non+con rac $al liabili ( of he E$ropean Union in s aff cases/ in par ic$lar as re9ards he condi ion rela in9 o he e?is ence of a s$fficien l( serio$s breach of E$ropean Union la* b( he ins i $ ion concerned6 In ha <$d9men / he 3eneral Co$r held/ depar in9 from he decision o he con rar( in i s <$d9men of !) December "))' in Case T+@,->> Nardone v Commission/ ha his condi ion is f$lfilled *hen he ins i $ ion concerned commi s an $nla*f$l ac / *i ho$ i s bein9 necessar( o consider *he her ha $nla*f$l ac cons i $ es a manifes and 9rave disre9ard of he limi s on he discre ion of ha ins i $ ion6 # In addi ion/ al ho$9h he Co$r has alread( specified he 9eneral condi ions 9overnin9 he non+con rac $al liabili ( of he E$ropean Union (see/ in par ic$lar/ Case C+ #@"->' % Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission A")))B ECR I+@">!&/ i is ar9$ed ha he Co$r has ho*ever no (e r$led on *he her he specific na $re of li i9a ion in s aff cases arisin9 from Ar icle ",) TFEU and Ar icles >) and >! of he S aff Re9$la ions of

Officials of he E$ropean Comm$ni ies <$s ifies ma7in9 he non+con rac $al liabili ( of he E$ropean Union in his area s$b<ec o special condi ions6 = S$ch circ$ms ances do no <$s if( he proposed revie*6 Firs / i is no for he Co$r of 5$s ice/ in he con e? of he revie* proced$re/ o r$le on he meri s of he 3eneral Co$r Cs developmen of i s o*n case+la* *hen ac in9 in i s appella e capaci (6 Second/ he fac ha he Co$r of 5$s ice has no (e r$led on a poin of la* is/ in i self/ no s$fficien o <$s if( a revie* p$rs$an o Ar icle 4" of he S a $ e of he Co$r of 5$s ice of he E$ropean Union/ in so far as i is no* solel( for he Civil Service Trib$nal and he 3eneral Co$r of he E$ropean Union o develop he case+la* in ma ers rela in9 o he civil service/ since he Co$r of 5$s ice has <$risdic ion onl( o preven he decisions of he 3eneral Co$r affec in9 he $ni ( or consis enc( of E$ropean Union la*6 @ In he presen case/ e?amina ion of he <$d9men of he 3eneral Co$r in Commission v Petrilli has no revealed ha here is a serio$s ris7 of he $ni ( or consis enc( of E$ropean Union la* bein9 affec ed6 On hose 9ro$nds/ he Co$r (special Chamber provided for in Ar icle !"#b of he R$les of %roced$re& hereb( decidesD It is not necessary to review the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 December !1! in Case "#1$%&!' ( Commission v Petrilli) ASi9na $resB

You might also like