ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Second Chamber)
17 September 2009
Case F-121/07
Guido Strack
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Civil service – Procedural issues – Objection of inadmissibility and lack of jurisdiction – Procedure by default)
Application: in the action brought by Mr Strack on 22 October 2007 under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, the Commission raised in a separate
document an objection of inadmissibility and lack of jurisdiction against that action under Articles 76 and 78 of the Rules
of Procedure.
Held: The Commission’s application for a ruling on the inadmissibility of the action and the Tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction is
admissible. The applicant’s request for a ruling by default is dismissed. The decision on the Commission’s application for
a ruling on the inadmissibility of the action and the Tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction is reserved for the final judgment.
Costs are reserved.
Summary
1.      Procedure – Admissibility of procedural documents – Assessment at the time when the document is submitted – Period for lodging
an objection of inadmissibility
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 114; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 78; Council
Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))
2.      Procedure – Admissibility of procedural documents – Submission of an objection of inadmissibility after obtaining an extension
of the period for lodging the defence – Admissibility
(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 39 and 78)
1.      Where a defendant raises an objection of inadmissibility under Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal
against an action brought before those Rules came into force and subject to the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the
Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 3(4) of Decision 2004/752 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal,
the time-limit to be met for lodging the objection of inadmissibility is that laid down in the Rules of Procedure in force
on the date of service of the application. Moreover, whether the situation falls within the scope of Article 114 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Court of First Instance or of Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, the
time-limit set for lodging the objection of inadmissibility starts running from that date of service.
(see paras 10, 13, 16)
See:
F‑107/07 Daskalakis v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 25
2.      Where the Civil Service Tribunal has accepted a request from a defendant to extend the period for lodging the defence, the
fact that the defendant chose, before the end of that extended period, to raise an objection of inadmissibility under Article
78 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, instead of lodging a defence containing an in-depth analysis of
the case, does not put in question whether its request for an extension was in accordance with the relevant provisions of
the Rules of Procedure or lead to the conclusion that that request was unlawful.
In granting an extension to the period for lodging the defence before the end of the period laid down in Article 78 of the
Rules of Procedure for submitting an objection of inadmissibility, the Civil Service Tribunal has implicitly agreed that,
within the extended period allowed, the defendant may lodge an objection of inadmissibility in a separate document or a defence.
In that respect, while it is true that no express provision is made for the possibility of extending the period laid down
in Article 78, it may not be inferred, in so far as the period was extended before it expired, that a party may not lodge
an objection of inadmissibility in a separate document before the end of the extended period.
(see paras 18, 20)
See:
T-387/00 Comitato organizzatore del convegno internazionale v Commission [2002] ECR  II‑3031, para. 35