ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Second Chamber)
17 September 2009
Case F-132/07
Guido Strack
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Civil service – Procedural issues – Objection of inadmissibility – Procedure by default)
Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which the Commission, in the context of the action brought by Mr Strack on 22 October
2007, raised in a separate document an objection of inadmissibility against that action under Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure.
Held: The Commission’s application for a ruling on the inadmissibility of the action 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 is reserved for the final judgment. Costs are reserved.
Summary
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)
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 10, 12)
See:
T-387/00 Comitato organizzatore del convegno internazionale v Commission [2002] ECR  II‑3031, para. 35