Order — ECLI:EU:T:2014:223
Date: 2014-04-10
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - inadmissible;Staff cases;Action for damages

Summary Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application submitted by fax within the prescribed period — Handwritten signature of the lawyer different from that on the original of the application sent by post — Consequence — Date of receipt of the fax not taken into account in order to determine compliance with the period prescribed for bringing an appeal (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(6)) Pursuant to Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading is received at the Registry of the Court by fax or by any other technical means of communication is to be deemed to be the date of lodgment for the purposes of compliance with procedural time-limits only if the signed original of the pleading is lodged at the Registry no later than 10 days after receipt of the fax. Where the signature of the lawyer representing an appellant at the bottom of the faxed appeal is not the same as the signature on the original of the appeal lodged subsequently, the date of transmission of the faxed appeal cannot be taken into account for the purpose of assessing compliance with the time-limit for bringing an appeal. It follows that, in accordance with Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, only the date of receipt of the signed original must be taken into account for the purpose of assessing compliance with that time-limit. (see paras 6, 8-9) See: Judgment of 29 November 2011 in T‑345/11 ENISA v EDPS, not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17 and the case-law cited therein; judgment of 3 October 2012 in T‑360/10 Tecnimed v OHIM — Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK), not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17; T‑229/13 P Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, paras 14 and 15