CELEX: 62011TN0213
Language: en
Date: 2011-04-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-213/11 P(I): Appeal brought on 12 April 2011 by the College of staff representatives of the European Investment Bank and Others against the order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 March 2011 in Case F-95/10 Bömcke v EIB

21.5.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 152/31
            
         Appeal brought on 12 April 2011 by the College of staff representatives of the European Investment Bank and Others against the order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 March 2011 in Case F-95/10 Bömcke v EIB
   (Case T-213/11 P(I))
   2011/C 152/57
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: College of staff representatives of the European Investment Bank (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Marie-Christel Heger (Luxembourg), Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg), Evangelos Kourgias (Senningerberg, Luxembourg), Manuel Sutil (Nondkeil, France) and Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. J. Wilson, A. Senes and B. Entringer, lawyers)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Eberhard Bömcke (Athus, Belgium) and the European Investment Bank
   
      Forms of order sought by the appellant
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               amend the order the order of 17 March 2011 of the President of the Second Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare admissible and well founded the application to intervene submitted on 12 January 2011 to the President and other members of the Civil Service Tribunal and declare the applicant a party to the dispute between Eberhard BÖMCKE and the European Investment Bank, in light of the direct interest of the applicant to be a party thereto, pursuant to Articles 109 ff. of the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   By order of 17 March 2011, the President of the Second Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed as inadmissible, on the grounds that it was out of time, the application to intervene made in Case F-95/10 Bömcke v EIB, by the College of staff representatives of the European Investment Bank and Ms Heger, Mr Bodson, Mr Kourgias, Mr Sutil and Mr Vanhoudt.
   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging an error in the calculation of the time-limit for the submission of the application for leave to appeal, since the time-limit of four weeks provided for in Article 109 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal and the extension on account of distance by a single period of 10 days under Article 100(3) of the Rules should be regarded as separate and independent time-limits, so that the postponement of the deadline, pursuant to Article 100(2) of the Rules, until the end of the first following working day, if the period would otherwise end on a Saturday, Sunday or official holiday, must apply to the deadline of four weeks before adding the extension on account of distance and does not apply to the whole time-limit including the extension on account of distance.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging wrongful application of the order in Case T-85/97 Horeca-Wallonie v Commission [1997] ECR II-2113, paragraphs 25 and 26, since that order deals with a different situation to that at issue in the present case.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights of the applicants for leave to intervene, since the interpretation given by the President of the Second Chamber was very adverse to the right to appeal.