Amendment of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance with a view to expediting proceedings
Date: 2001-01-27
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: General Court (EU), administrative formalities, administrative procedure

C 28/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.1.2001

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Amendment of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
First Instance with a view to expediting proceedings

(2001/C 28/48)

On 6 December 2000 the Court of First Instance adopted
various amendments to its Rules of Procedure with a view to
expediting proceedings (OJ L 322 of 19 December 2000).
Those amendments will enter into force on 1 February 2001.

The amendments in question chiefly concern:

(1)

the introduction of an expedited (‘fast track’) procedure;

(2)

the possibility of the Court dispensing with a second
exchange of pleadings;

(3)

the shortening of the time-limit for intervening;

— The Court’s decision will be taken in the light of each
individual case, having regard to the particular urgency
of the matter, the circumstances of the case and the
in view of its complexity and the
question whether,
volume of the pleadings lodged, the case lends itself to
essentially oral argument.

2.

Elimination of a second exchange of pleadings — amendment
of Article 47

Where, following the lodgement of the defence, the case-file is
sufficiently comprehensive to enable the parties to elaborate
their pleas and arguments in the course of the oral procedure,
the Court may decide that no reply or rejoinder is to be lodged.
Upon application by the parties, they will be allowed more
time for the presentation of oral submissions, so that they may
elaborate their arguments at the hearing.

(4)

the use of modern means of communication and the
simplification of the rules concerning extensions of time
on account of distance.

3. Abridgement of the time-limit for intervening — amendment
of Article 115(1) and addition of a new Article 116(6)

1.

Introduction of an expedited (‘fast track’) procedure — new
Article 76a

This new type of procedure is designed to deal with cases of a
particularly urgent nature which do not lend themselves to the
adoption of interim measures of the kind which may be
ordered in proceedings for interim relief. The cases in question
include, for example, actions concerning public access to
administrative documents held by the institutions or decisions
regarding the control of mergers and takeovers.

— The time-limit for intervening is shortened to six weeks
from publication in the Official Journal of the notice
concerning the initiation of the proceedings.

— A belated application to intervene made following the
expiry of that time-limit and prior to the decision to open
the oral procedure will be allowed, but the intervener
concerned may only submit oral observations at the
hearing, based solely on the Report for the Hearing as
communicated to him.

— Under the expedited procedure, the emphasis will be
placed on the oral procedure. The Court will devote more
time to it, allowing all aspects of the case to be argued
comprehensively and in depth.

4. Use of modern means of communication — new Article 43(6),
amendment of Articles 44(2) and 100; and simplification of
the rules governing extensions of time on account of distance
— amendment of Article 102(2)

— The written procedure will in principle be limited to the
application and the defence. There will be no second
exchange of pleadings or any lodgement of statements in
intervention.

— The pleadings lodged must be brief and concise.

— The case will be given priority.

— An application for a case to be determined under an
expedited procedure must be made by a separate docu-
ment lodged at the same time as the application initiating
the proceedings or the defence, as the case may be.

Extended provision is made for the use of faxes or other
technical means of communication for the purposes of
correspondence between the Court Registry and the parties’
lawyers and agents. The ability to transmit documents instan-
taneously no longer warrants the existence of differentiated
time-limits on account of distance which vary according to the
physical location of the parties.

— The lodging of procedural documents in such a way as to
comply with time-limits, in the form of a copy of the
signed original sent by way of fax or attachment (scanned
is
copy) of an e-mail
permitted on condition that the signed original is received
at the Registry no later than ten days thereafter.

(address: cfi.registry@curia.eu.int)

27.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/27

— The Registry may serve documents by fax or e-mail,
provided that the lawyer or agent concerned has agreed
to service being effected in that way.

— the promotions were decided upon in the absence
of any staff report on the applicant or of any other
document to palliate its absence;

— Where the lawyer or agent has agreed to service being
effected in that way, the statement of an address for
service in Luxembonrg is optional.

— There is to be a single, uniform ten-day extension of the
time-limit on account of distance, regardless of
the
location of the party concerned.

Practice directions concerning the detailed implementation of
these amendments will be issued and promulgated in due
course.

— the applicant’s merits were erroneously assessed; and

— the promotions procedure is vitiated by the fact that
it was based on reports drawn up on the basis of a
system of awarding points which disregards the
‘Guide de la notation’.

Action brought on 20 November 2000 by Hubert Huy-
gens against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-351/00)

(2001/C 28/49)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 November 2000 by Hubert
Huygens, residing in Olm (Luxembourg), represented by Sylvie
Nyssens, of the Brussels Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of the European
Communities not to promote the applicant to Grade B 1
in the 2000 promotions procedure;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Action brought on 21 November 2000 by Jean-Marie Le
Pen against European Parliament

(Case T-353/00)

(2001/C 28/50)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
21 November 2000 by Jean-Marie Le Pen, residing in St Cloud
(France), represented by François Wagner, of the Nice Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the contested measure null and void;

— award the applicant FRF 50 000 in non-returnable dam-

ages;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and
breach of the rights of the defence inasmuch as no
reasons have been provided for the contested decision.

— Infringement of Articles 26, 43 and 45 of the Staff
Regulations and breach of the principles of equal treat-
ment and sound administration, inasmuch as:

The applicant, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP),
contests the decision taken by the President of the European
Parliament on 23 October 2000 taking note, in accordance
with Article 12(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning
the election of representatives to the European Parliament by
direct universal suffrage, of the notification from the French
Government of the termination of the term of office of Jean-
Marie Le Pen as MEP. That decision was taken after he was
found guilty of a criminal offence by a French criminal court.