CELEX: 62007FO0030
Language: en
Date: 2009-04-30 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 April 2009. # Lidia Noworyta v European Parliament. # No need to give a decision. # Case F-30/07.

ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
      (First Chamber)
      30 April 2009
      Case F-30/07
      Lidia Noworyta
      v
      European Parliament
      (No need to adjudicate)
      Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Noworyta seeks annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 28 April 2006
         rejecting the proposal of her hierarchical superior of 20 October 2005 and refusing to grant her the fixed allowance for overtime
         within the meaning of Article 3 of Annex VI to the Staff Regulations; as an alternative to payment of that allowance, the
         applicant seeks payment of any other allowance either under Article 56a or 56b of the Staff Regulations.
      
      Held: There is no need to adjudicate in Case F‑30/07 Noworyta v Parliament, which is removed from the register of the Tribunal. Each party is to bear its own costs.
      
      Summary
      Procedure – Request complied with after action was brought
      (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 75)
      The Community judicature is entitled to assess, depending on the circumstances of each individual case, whether the proper
         administration of justice justifies the rejection on the merits of an action for annulment or, by analogy, the finding that
         an action has become devoid of purpose and that there is therefore no need to adjudicate on its merits, without ruling beforehand
         on a plea of inadmissibility raised by the defendant.
      
      That applies where the Tribunal has already, in an earlier case, adjudicated on the merits in favour of the applicant in the
         present case before it, even though, at the hearing and in reply to a question from the Tribunal in that second case, the
         parties declared that, although the action in the earlier case was ruled admissible and the Tribunal had adjudicated on its
         merits, there was no need to adjudicate in the second case.
      
      (see paras 5-8)
      See:
      C-23/00 P Council v Boehringer [2002] ECR I‑1873, paras 51 and 52; C-233/02 France v Commission [2004] ECR I‑2759, para. 26
      
      T-171/02 Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Commission [2005] ECR II‑2123, para. 155
      
      F-134/06 Bordini v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 56; F-115/07 Balieu-Steinmetz and Noworyta v Parliament [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000