Order — ECLI:EU:F:2015:136
Date: 2015-11-17
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible

Summary Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application lodged without the assistance of a lawyer — Applicant having the status of lawyer authorised to practise before a national court — No effect — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19(3) and (4); Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 45(2), first para., and 50) It follows from the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and in particular the term ‘represented’, as well as from the first paragraph of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, that in order to bring an action before the Tribunal, a party, within the meaning of those articles, must use the services of a third person authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of a State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and that only an application signed by that third person may be validly referred to the Tribunal. Since no derogation from or exception to that obligation is provided for by the Court’s Statute or the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the submission of an application signed by the applicant himself, even if he is a lawyer authorised to practise before a national court, cannot be sufficient for the purpose of bringing an action. Such a breach is not one which may be rectified under Article 50 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal and therefore renders the action manifestly inadmissible. (see paras 6-8, 12, 13) See: Orders of 5 December 1996 in Lopes v Court of Justice, C‑174/96 P, EU:C:1996:473, paragraphs 8-11, and 27 November 2007 in Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret and Akar v Commission, C‑163/07 P, EU:C:2007:717, paragraphs 25 and 26 Order of 13 January 2005 in Sulvida v Commission, T‑184/04, EU:T:2005:7, paragraphs 4 and 8 Orders of 30 October 2008 in Ortega Serrano v Commission, F‑48/08, EU:F:2008:131, paragraph 41, affirmed on appeal by Order of 9 March 2010 in Ortega Serrano v Commission, T‑583/08 P, EU:T:2010:79, and 13 February 2012 in Ayres de Abreu v EESC, F‑123/11, EU:F:2012:17, paragraph 17