Judgment_paragraph 38 · Edward Latham v European Commission (T-27/90)

38In this Court's view, it appears from an analysis of previous decisions of the Court of Justice in this area, in particular the judgments which declared claims for compensation inadmissible on the ground that they were closely linked with claims for annulment which had themselves been declared inadmissible, that two criteria have been laid down for the inadmissibility of claims for compensation. Such claims are inadmissible where an action for compensation seeks reparation exclusively for the consequences of the measure contested in the action for annulment, which has itself been declared inadmissible, or where the sole purpose of the claim for compensation is to make up for ‘losses of remuneration’ which would not have occurred if the action for annulment had been successful (see in that respect the judgments in the following cases: Case 53/70 Vinck v Commission [1971] ECR 601; Joined Cases 15/73 to 33/73, 52/73, 53/73, 57/73 to 109/73, 116/73, 117/73, 123/73, 132/73 and 135/73 to 137/73 Schots-Kortner and Others v Council, Commission and Parliament [1974] ECR 177; Case 129/75 Hirschberg v Commission [1976] ECR 1259; Case 33/80 Aibini v Council and Commission [1981] ECR 2149; Case 543/79 Birke v Commission [1981] ECR 2669; and Bossi v Commission cited above). On the other hand, where the two actions derive from different acts or courses of conduct on the part of the administration, the action for compensation cannot be identified with the action for annulment, even if both actions pursued the same financial result for the applicant (judgment in Case 79/71 Heinemann v Commission [1972] ECR 579).

Edward Latham v European Commission (T-27/90)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections