CELEX: 62007FO0011
Language: en
Date: 2007-03-27 00:00:00
Title: Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 March 2007. # António Henriques Montes Dória v Commission of the European Communities. # Case F-11/07 AJ.

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
      OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
      27 March 2007
      Case F-11/07 AJ
      António Henriques Montes Dória
      v
      Commission of the European Communities
      (Legal aid)
      Application: in which Mr Montes Dória seeks legal aid under Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable
         mutatis mutandis to the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to 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 its rules
         of procedure. 
      
      Held: The application for legal aid is rejected.
      
      Summary
      Procedure – Application for legal aid – Conditions for granting 
      (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 94(3); Staff Regulations, Art. 48; Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))
      An application for legal aid for an action which is manifestly inadmissible must be refused under Article 94(3) of the Rules
         of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. That is true of an action brought by an official whose resignation has been accepted
         and who seeks annulment of the refusal to readmit him to the service, where he has not previously applied under the procedure
         in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for a declaration that his resignation statement is void. Such an application
         for readmission may be regarded either as a withdrawal of his resignation statement, which can have no legal effect on a definitive
         resignation, or as an unsolicited candidature for a post, the rejection of which, since the candidature cannot be other than
         informal, does not constitute an act adversely affecting the official.
      
      (see paras 3-10, 12)
      See:
      T-7/98, T-208/98 and T-109/99 De Nicola v EIB [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑49 and II‑185, paras 119, 287 to 307; T-406/04 Bonnet v Court of Justice [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑213 and II‑A‑2‑1097, para. 33