Case T-59/13 P: Appeal brought on 30 January 2013 by BT against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 December 2012 in Case F-45/12 BT v Commission
Date: 2013-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: servant (EU), work contract








C_2013114EN.01003701.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/37





Appeal brought on 30 January 2013 by BT against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 December 2012 in Case F-45/12 BT v Commission
(Case T-59/13 P)
2013/C 114/59
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: BT (Bucarest, Romania) (represented by: N. Visan, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Cancel the EU Civil Service Tribunal’s Order of 3 December 2012 in case F-45/12;










—


Re-judge the case and accept the application made by the applicant/appellant; and










—


Make the defendant/respondent pay for the judgment costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on seven pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging breaching one of the principles that governs the administrative procedure, the principle of the active role, since the Civil Service Tribunal considered that the application did not contain pleas in law, without making a verification of its own motion on the legality of the decision questioned in the first court that would not limit to the reasons mentioned by the applicant.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breaching article 6-line 1 and article 47-lines 1&2 from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Breach of the principle of ‘access to the court’ and the principle of impartiality of the Tribunal since the Civil Service Tribunal rejected the action of the appellant as manifestly inadmissible without giving her the possibility to make-right/complete the application, a right provisioned for and recognized in the legislation of any European country but also of the European courts (for example the European Court of Human Rights).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breaching the right of ‘access to the court’ that has also materialized by the non-acceptance by the Tribunal of the right of lodging a reply to the defendant’s defense –and this while the applicant/appellant has expressly requested the second exchange of pleadings. Non-granting this right (to lodge a reply) has deprived the appellant from the chance to make right the irregularity claimed by the Tribunal — and this at a time when the appellant could no longer lodge a new action that would comply with the legal requirements since the deadline to introduce an action had expired (article 78 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal).










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breaching the principle referring to the right to sustain the case before a court and breaching the principle of the public character of the procedure, since there has not been an open court; this principle is provided in the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal and by article 6-line 1/European Convention on Human Rights.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging breaching the principle of equity of the procedure since the Civil Service Tribunal has not heard the appellant regarding the inadmissibility cause of her action (article 6-line 1/European Convention on Human Rights).










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging breaching article 21 first paragraph of the Statute of the Court of Justice and article 44 line (1) letter (c) from the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance since the Civil Service Tribunal has applied in reality a ‘rule of crystallizing the legal proceedings’ considering that the application did not contain pleas in law.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that ordering the appellant to pay the judgment costs when the Tribunal has not adjudicated on the substance of the case, at a time when the appellant is at present a social case following the consequences of ending the employment contract with the European Commission infringes Article 89 point (6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal ‘where a case does not proceed to judgment, the costs shall be in the discretion of the Tribunal’.