ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

1 December 2006 ( )

(Legal aid)

In Case F-101/06 AJ,

APPLICATION for legal aid under Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities,

Emil Atanasov, residing in Burgas (Bulgaria),

applicant,

v

Commission of the European Communities,

defendant,





THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRIBUNAL

makes the following

Order

1 By application lodged at the Registry of the Tribunal on 29 August 2006, Mr Atanasov applied for legal aid, pursuant to Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, applicable mutatis mutandis to the Tribunal by virtue of Article 3(4) of Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (OJ 2004 L 333, p. 7) until the entry into force of the latter’s Rules of Procedure.

2 The applicant, who was a candidate in open competition EPSO AD/35/05 organised by the European Personnel Selection Office, applied for legal aid in order to bring an action seeking, first, access to his examination papers, the answers to the pre-selection tests, and his ranking as a result of those tests, and, second, the award of ‘any money provided for by the law as just satisfaction’.

3 By letter of 18 September 2006, the Tribunal requested the applicant to put his application for legal aid in order and set a final date for his response of 13 October 2006. In particular, the Tribunal asked Mr Atanasov to provide all information and supporting documents making it possible to assess his economic situation, as well as a brief statement of the subject-matter of the proposed action, the facts of the case and the arguments in support of the action, together with all supporting documents in that regard.

4 The applicant failed to provide any additional documents within the time-limit that he had been set.

5 Pursuant to Article 94(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the grant of legal aid is conditional on the applicant being, because of his or her economic situation, wholly or partly unable to meet the costs involved in legal assistance and representation by a lawyer in proceedings before the Tribunal.

6 Article 94(3) of the Rules of Procedure provides that legal aid is to be refused if the action in respect of which the application is made appears to be manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded.

7 Under Article 96(1) of the Rules of Procedure, before giving its decision on an application for legal aid, the Tribunal is to invite the other party to submit its written observations, unless it is already apparent from the information produced that the conditions laid down in Article 94(2) have not been satisfied or that those laid down in Article 94(3) have been satisfied.

8 Under the first subparagraph of Article 95(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the application for legal aid must be accompanied by all information and supporting documents making it possible to assess the applicant’s economic situation, such as a certificate issued by the competent national authority attesting to his or her economic situation.

9 The second subparagraph of Article 95(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides that, if the application for legal aid is made before the action has been brought, the applicant must briefly state the subject-matter of the proposed action, the facts of the case and the arguments in support of the action. The application for legal aid must be accompanied by supporting documents in that regard.

10 In the present case, the Tribunal finds, first, that the production of a copy of one of the applicant’s monthly salary slips does not make it possible for the Tribunal to assess his economic situation. His application for legal aid does not, therefore, satisfy the conditions laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 95(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

11 Second, the application for legal aid does not adequately set out either the facts of the case or the arguments in support of the action, and it is not accompanied by any supporting documents in that regard. It does not, therefore, satisfy the conditions laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 95(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

12 None of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance states expressly the consequences of a failure to comply with the conditions laid down in the first and second subparagraphs of Article 95(2).

13 However, the Tribunal considers that those provisions must be interpreted in their context and in particular in the light of Article 94(2) and (3) and Article 96(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

14 An application for legal aid which does not satisfy the conditions laid down in the first or second subparagraphs of Article 95(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance does not enable the Tribunal to assess, first, whether the applicant is, because of his economic situation, wholly or partly unable to meet the costs involved in legal assistance and representation by a lawyer and, second, whether the proposed action appears to be manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded.

15 In the Tribunal’s view, it would be contrary to the sound administration of justice if an application for legal aid which does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 95(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance were dealt with more favourably than one which fulfilled those conditions but which, on the basis of the information that it contained, was dismissed under Article 94(2) or (3) of the Rules of Procedure.

16 In this connection reference may be made to Article 44(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, whereby the Tribunal may decide, notably where the applicant has failed to put the originating application in order within the time prescribed, that non-compliance with certain conditions as to accompanying documents to be lodged renders the application formally inadmissible.

17 By analogy with the rule embodied in this provision, non-compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 95(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance must therefore be regarded as being capable of rendering the application for legal aid formally inadmissible.

18 It follows from all of the foregoing that, in the circumstances, this application for legal aid must be dismissed, without it being necessary to invite the other party to submit its written observations.

On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRIBUNAL

hereby orders:

The application for legal aid in Case F-101/06 AJ is dismissed.

Luxembourg, 1 December 2006.

W. Hakenberg P. Mahoney