CELEX: C2001/028/48
Language: en
Date: 2001-01-27 00:00:00
Title: Amendment of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance with a view to expediting proceedings

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                     —     The Court’s decision will be taken in the light of each
   First Instance with a view to expediting proceedings                       individual case, having regard to the particular urgency
                                                                              of the matter, the circumstances of the case and the
                                                                              question whether, in view of its complexity and the
                        (2001/C 28/48)                                        volume of the pleadings lodged, the case lends itself to
                                                                              essentially oral argument.
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.              2.    Elimination of a second exchange of pleadings — amendment
                                                                              of Article 47
The amendments in question chiefly concern:
                                                                        Where, following the lodgement of the defence, the case-file is
(1) the introduction of an expedited (‘fast track’) procedure;          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.
(2) the possibility of the Court dispensing with a second               Upon application by the parties, they will be allowed more
     exchange of pleadings;                                             time for the presentation of oral submissions, so that they may
                                                                        elaborate their arguments at the hearing.
(3) the shortening of the time-limit for intervening;
(4) the use of modern means of communication and the
     simplification of the rules concerning extensions of time          3.    Abridgement of the time-limit for intervening — amendment
     on account of distance.                                                  of Article 115(1) and addition of a new Article 116(6)
                                                                        —     The time-limit for intervening is shortened to six weeks
                                                                              from publication in the Official Journal of the notice
1.   Introduction of an expedited (‘fast track’) procedure — new              concerning the initiation of the proceedings.
     Article 76a
                                                                        —     A belated application to intervene made following the
                                                                              expiry of that time-limit and prior to the decision to open
This new type of procedure is designed to deal with cases of a                the oral procedure will be allowed, but the intervener
particularly urgent nature which do not lend themselves to the                concerned may only submit oral observations at the
adoption of interim measures of the kind which may be                         hearing, based solely on the Report for the Hearing as
ordered in proceedings for interim relief. The cases in question              communicated to him.
include, for example, actions concerning public access to
administrative documents held by the institutions or decisions
regarding the control of mergers and takeovers.
                                                                        4.    Use of modern means of communication — new Article 43(6),
—    Under the expedited procedure, the emphasis will be                      amendment of Articles 44(2) and 100; and simplification of
     placed on the oral procedure. The Court will devote more                 the rules governing extensions of time on account of distance
     time to it, allowing all aspects of the case to be argued                — amendment of Article 102(2)
     comprehensively and in depth.
—    The written procedure will in principle be limited to the          Extended provision is made for the use of faxes or other
     application and the defence. There will be no second               technical means of communication for the purposes of
     exchange of pleadings or any lodgement of statements in            correspondence between the Court Registry and the parties’
     intervention.                                                      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
—    The pleadings lodged must be brief and concise.                    physical location of the parties.
—    The case will be given priority.                                   —     The lodging of procedural documents in such a way as to
                                                                              comply with time-limits, in the form of a copy of the
—    An application for a case to be determined under an                      signed original sent by way of fax or attachment (scanned
     expedited procedure must be made by a separate docu-                     copy) of an e-mail (address: cfi.registry@curia.eu.int) is
     ment lodged at the same time as the application initiating               permitted on condition that the signed original is received
     the proceedings or the defence, as the case may be.                      at the Registry no later than ten days thereafter.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.1.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 28/27
—     The Registry may serve documents by fax or e-mail,                       —     the promotions were decided upon in the absence
      provided that the lawyer or agent concerned has agreed                         of any staff report on the applicant or of any other
      to service being effected in that way.                                         document to palliate its absence;
—     Where the lawyer or agent has agreed to service being                    —     the applicant’s merits were erroneously assessed; and
      effected in that way, the statement of an address for
      service in Luxembonrg is optional.
                                                                               —     the promotions procedure is vitiated by the fact that
                                                                                     it was based on reports drawn up on the basis of a
—     There is to be a single, uniform ten-day extension of the                      system of awarding points which disregards the
      time-limit on account of distance, regardless of the                           ‘Guide de la notation’.
      location of the party concerned.
Practice directions concerning the detailed implementation of
these amendments will be issued and promulgated in due
course.
                                                                         Action brought on 21 November 2000 by Jean-Marie Le
                                                                                         Pen against European Parliament
Action brought on 20 November 2000 by Hubert Huy-                                                 (Case T-353/00)
 gens against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (2001/C 28/50)
                        (Case T-351/00)
                         (2001/C 28/49)                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                   (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
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                (France), represented by François Wagner, of the Nice Bar.
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             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Nyssens, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                         —     declare the contested measure null and void;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     award the applicant FRF 50 000 in non-returnable dam-
—     annul the decision of the Commission of the European                     ages;
      Communities not to promote the applicant to Grade B 1
      in the 2000 promotions procedure;
                                                                         —     order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP),
                                                                         contests the decision taken by the President of the European
—     Infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and            Parliament on 23 October 2000 taking note, in accordance
      breach of the rights of the defence inasmuch as no                 with Article 12(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning
      reasons have been provided for the contested decision.             the election of representatives to the European Parliament by
                                                                         direct universal suffrage, of the notification from the French
—     Infringement of Articles 26, 43 and 45 of the Staff                Government of the termination of the term of office of Jean-
      Regulations and breach of the principles of equal treat-           Marie Le Pen as MEP. That decision was taken after he was
      ment and sound administration, inasmuch as:                        found guilty of a criminal offence by a French criminal court.