Case T-12/08 P-RENV-RX-AJ

M

v

European Medicines Agency (EMA)

(Legal aid)

Summary of the Order

Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Application for legal aid

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 96(4), and 121c(1))

Article 96(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, pursuant to which the introduction of an application for legal aid is to suspend the period prescribed for the bringing of an action until the date of notification of the order making a decision on that application, must be applied by analogy to proceedings before the General Court following review and reference back by the Court of Justice inasmuch as the period laid down in Article 121c(1) of the Rules of Procedure is suspended by the bringing of the application for legal aid, without the assistance of a lawyer, until the date of notification of the order ruling on that application, in order to ensure its effectiveness.

(see paras 15-17)

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

11 March 2010 ( )

(Legal aid)

In Case T‑12/08 P‑RENV‑RX‑AJ,

M, former member of the temporary staff of the European Medicines Agency, residing in Broxbourne, Hertfordshire (United Kingdom), represented by J‑N. Louis, lawyer,

appellant,

the other party to the proceedings being

European Medicines Agency (EMA), represented by V. Salvatore and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents,

defendant at first instance,

APPLICATION for legal aid pursuant to Article 95 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court,

THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber),

composed of M. Jaeger (Rapporteur), President, J. Azizi, N.J. Forwood, O. Czúcz and I. Pelikánová, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

1 By document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 8 January 2010, the appellant, Mr M, applied for legal aid pursuant to Article 95 of the Rules of Procedure for the purpose of proceedings before the General Court following the review judgment of 17 December 2009 in Case C‑197/09 RX‑II M v EMEA [2009] ECR II‑0000, by which the Court of Justice, after finding that the judgment of the Court of First Instance (now ‘the General Court’) of 6 May 2009 in Case T‑12/08 P M v EMEA [2009] ECR II‑12033 adversely affected the unity and the consistency of Community law, set aside points 3 and 5 of the operative part of that judgment, and referred the case back to the General Court.

2 In support of that application, the appellant claims that, since 31 October 2009, the end of the period during which he was receiving monthly unemployment benefit, he has had no other financial means apart from the income of his wife [confidential]. ( ) The appellant claims that the income is used to pay household expenses [confidential].

3 The provisions on legal aid in Article 94 to 97 of the Rules of Procedure apply to the procedure on appeal pursuant to Article 144 thereof.

4 In accordance with Article 96(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was invited to submit to the General Court its observations on the appellant’s application. It did not reply within the time limit.

5 Under Article 96(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the decision on the application for legal aid is to be taken by way of an order by the President, who may refer the matter to the General Court.

6 In the present case, the President of the Appeal Chamber of the General Court has decided to make use of this power.

7 Under Article 94(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure, the grant of the legal aid is subject to a dual requirement that, first, the appellant, because of his economic situation, is wholly or partly unable to meet the costs involved in legal assistance and representation before the General Court and, second, that his action does not appear to be manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded.

8 In the present case, concerning the first condition, it is apparent from the evidence submitted in support of the application for legal aid that Mr M is unable, at least partly, to incur the costs involved in legal assistance and representation before the Court by a lawyer for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court following the review judgment in M v EMEA.

9 Next, the General Court, in its judgment in M v EMEA, without being contradicted by the Court of Justice during the review proceedings, did not consider that the appeal brought Mr M by was manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded.

10 Since Mr M is not applying for legal aid to bring a new action but only to put forward his point of view in the proceedings before the General Court following the review judgment M v EMEA, the second requirement for the grant of legal aid is fulfilled.

11 It follows from the first and second paragraphs of Article 96(3) of the Rules of Procedure that, if the interested person in his application for legal aid indicates his choice of lawyer, the order granting that application is to designate that lawyer to represent the person concerned, except where his choice is unacceptable.

12 In the present case, Mr M proposed that Mr Jean‑Noël Louis should be designated to represent him. The General Court finds no objection to that designation.

13 In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 96(3) of the Rules of Procedure, an order granting legal aid may specify an amount to be paid to the lawyer instructed to represent the person concerned or fix a limit which the lawyer’s disbursements and fees may not, in principle, exceed.

14 In the present case, it is appropriate to grant Mr M legal aid up to a maximum amount of EUR 2 000, on the basis of supporting documents.

15 Under Article 96(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the introduction of an application for legal aid is to suspend the period prescribed for the bringing of an action until the date of notification of the order making a decision on that application.

16 Before that provision was introduced into the Rules of Procedure, this Court had already held that, in order to give due effect to an application for legal aid, which has been lodged without the assistance of a lawyer, the lodging of that application before the initiation of proceedings and within the period prescribed for that purpose prevents time from running for the purposes of bringing proceedings until the date on which the applicant is served with the legal aid order (order in Case T‑92/92 AJ Lallemand‑Zeller v Commission [1993] ECR II‑31).

17 In the present case, it follows that Article 96(4) of the Rules of Procedure must be applied by analogy to proceedings before this Court following review and reference back inasmuch as the period laid down in Article 121c(1) of the Rules of Procedure is to be suspended by the bringing of the application for legal aid until the date of the notification of this order.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

hereby orders:

1. Mr M is granted legal aid.

2. Mr Jean‑Noël Louis is designated as the lawyer to represent Mr M in Case T-12/08 P‑RENV‑RX.

3. An amount corresponding to the costs of legal assistance and representation of Mr M will be paid to Mr Louis, on the basis of supporting documents, up to a maximum amount of EUR 2 000.

Luxembourg, 11 March 2010.

E. Coulon M. Jaeger