Order — ECLI:EU:F:2013:177
Date: 2013-11-07
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - inadmissible

Summary Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Clear and precise statement of the pleas in law relied on (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para., and Annex I, Art. 7(3); Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 35(1)(e)) Under Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, the application must contain the pleas and the factual and legal arguments on which it is based. Those pleas in law and arguments must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare his defence and the Tribunal to rule on the action, if necessary without any other supporting information. In order to ensure legal certainty and the proper administration of justice, it is necessary, if an action is to be admissible, that the essential points of law and fact relied on be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself. That is a fortiori the case since, under Article 7(3) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, the written stage of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal comprises, in principle, only one exchange of written pleadings, unless the Tribunal decides otherwise. That particular feature of the procedure before the Tribunal explains why, in contrast to the provisions in respect of cases before the Court of Justice or the General Court, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the pleas in law and the arguments in the application may not be in summary form. (see para. 11) See: 28 April 1993, T‑85/92 De Hoe v Commission, para. 20 4 June 2009, F‑134/07 and F‑8/08 Adjemian and Others v Commission, para. 76; 15 September 2011, F‑102/09 Bennett and Others v OHIM, para. 115; 1 February 2012, F‑123/10 Bancale and Buccheri v Commission, para. 38; 8 March 2012, F‑12/10 Kerstens v Commission, para. 68