ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

7 October 2014

Case T‑59/13 P

BT

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Contract staff — Non-renewal of contract — Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal)

Appeal: against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 3 December 2012 in BT v Commission (F‑45/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2012:168), seeking to have that order set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. BT is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

Summary

1. Actions brought by officials — Jurisdiction of the European Union Courts — Limits — Prohibition on ruling ultra petita

2. Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Possibility of adjudicating without an oral procedure — Infringement of the rights of the defence — None — Contestation — Conditions — Obligation to contest the Civil Service Tribunal’s assessment of those conditions

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 76)

1. Since a European Union Court before which an action for annulment has been brought cannot rule ultra petita, it is not entitled either to redefine the principal subject-matter of the action or to raise a plea of its own motion except in particular cases where the public interest requires its intervention.

(see para. 22)

See:

judgments of 18 December 2008 in Belgium and Commission v Genette, T‑90/07 P and T‑99/07 P, ECR, EU:T:2008:60, paras 72 to 75; and 5 October 2009 in Commission v Roodhuijzen, T‑58/08 P, ECR, EU:T:2009:385, para. 34

2. The application of the procedure provided for in Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, which allows the Tribunal to adjudicate by order without a hearing, does not in itself prejudice the right to proper and effective judicial process, since that provision is applicable only to cases where the Civil Service Tribunal manifestly has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the action or some of its heads of claim, or where the action is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

In the context of that procedure, the Civil Service Tribunal is not under any obligation to notify the party lodging an action that his application is manifestly inadmissible or to allow a second exchange of pleadings. Furthermore, it is clear from the very wording of Article 76 that applicants do not have a right to a hearing which cannot be derogated from.

If an applicant takes the view that the Civil Service Tribunal has incorrectly applied that article, he must challenge the assessment by the court at first instance of the conditions to which the application of that provision is subject.

(see paras 28, 29, 32-36, 38)

See:

orders of 8 July 1999 in Goldstein v Commission, C‑199/98 P, EU:C:1999:379, para. 18; of 3 June 2005 in Killinger v Germany and Others, C‑396/03 P, ECR, EU:C:2005:355, para. 9; and judgment of 19 February 2009 in Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v Parliament, C‑308/07 P, ECR, EU:C:2009:103, para. 36

judgment of 8 September 2008 in Kerstens v Commission, T‑222/07 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2008:314, para. 33; and order of 16 December 2010 in Meister v OHIM, T‑48/10 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2010:542, para. 29