CELEX: 62013FO0079(01)
Language: en
Date: 2015-07-16 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2015. # Valéria Anna Gyarmathy v European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). # Civil service - Judgment by default - Application to set aside made by the applicant - Manifest inadmissibility. # Case F-79/13 OP.

Parties
               Grounds
               Operative part
               
            
            Parties
            In Case F‑79/13 OP,
            APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE made on the basis of Article 124 of the Rules of Procedure,
            Valéria Anna Gyarmathy, former temporary member of staff of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, residing in Györ (Hungary), represented by K. Eöri, lawyer,
            applicant,
            v
            European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), 
            defendant,
            THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
            (Second Chamber),
            composed of K. Bradley (Rapporteur), President, H. Kreppel and M.I. Rofes i Pujol, Judges,
            Registrar: W. Hakenberg, Registrar,
            makes the following
            Order 
            
            Grounds
            1. By application received at the Registry of the Tribunal on 24 June 2015, Ms Gyarmathy seeks to challenge, by means of an application to set aside made on the basis of Article 124 of the Rules of Procedure (which reproduces — with amendments — Article 116(4) to (6) of the Rules of Procedure in force until 30 September 2014 (‘the former Rules of Procedure’)), the judgment of the Tribunal of 18 May 2015 in Gyarmathy  v EMCDDA  (F‑79/13, EU:F:2015:49) given by default against the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).
            Legal context 
            2. Article 41 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union states:
            ‘Where the defending party, after having been duly summoned, fails to file written submissions in defence, judgment shall be given against that party by default. An objection may be lodged against the judgment within one month of it being notified. The objection shall not have the effect of staying enforcement of the judgment by default unless the Court of Justice decides otherwise.’
            3. Article 121 of the Rules of Procedure, entitled ‘Judgments by default’, provides as follows:
            ‘1. If a defendant on whom an application initiating proceedings has been duly served fails to respond to the application in the proper form and within the time-limit prescribed, the applicant may apply to the Tribunal for judgment by default.
            ... 
            3. A judgment by default shall be enforceable.
            The Tribunal may, however, grant a stay of enforcement until it has given its decision on any application under Article 41 of the Statute [of the Court] to set aside the judgment ...’
            4. Article 124 of the Rules of Procedure, entitled ‘Application to set aside’, provides:
            ‘1. Application may be made pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute [of the Court] to set aside a judgment by default.
            2. The application to set aside the judgment must be made within one month from the date of service of the judgment. It must be submitted in the form prescribed by Articles 45 and 50 of these Rules.
            ... 
            5. The proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with Articles 36 to 48, 56 to 85 and 90 to 114.
            ...’
            Procedure 
            5. By application received at the Registry of the Tribunal on 12 November 2013 and registered as Case F‑79/13, the applicant brought an action (‘the action in Case F‑79/13’) seeking the annulment of several decisions adopted by the EMCDDA concerning a request for assistance in respect of alleged psychological harassment and the decision not to renew her contract as a temporary member of staff. In her action, the applicant claimed that the Tribunal should, inter alia:
            – annul the decision of 11 September 2012 by which the Director of the EMCDDA rejected her transfer request;
            – annul the note of 14 September 2012 by which the Head of the Human Resources Management Sector of the Administration Unit of the EMCDDA informed her that her contract would expire on 30 April 2013;
            – order the payment of compensation in respect of the material harm suffered, assessed at EUR 430 202;
            – order the payment of compensation in respect of the non-material harm suffered, assessed at EUR 120 000.
            6. As the EMCDDA failed to lodge its defence within the prescribed time-limit, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for judgment by default of the action in Case F‑79/13 on the basis of Article 116(1) of the former Rules in Procedure.
            7. By letter of 24 April 2014, the parties were informed of the Tribunal’s decision to apply Article 116 of the former Rules of Procedure and to close the written procedure.
            8. By a judgment given by default on 18 May 2015 in Gyarmathy  v EMCDDA  (F‑79/13, EU:F:2015:49), the Tribunal dismissed the action in Case F‑79/13.
            Forms of order sought by the applicant 
            9. The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:
            – set aside the judgment given by default on 18 May 2015 in Gyarmathy  v EMCDDA  (F‑79/13, EU:F:2015:49);
            – give a judgment in line with the forms of order set out in the action in Case F‑79/13, as recalled in paragraph 5 of this order.
            Law 
            The Tribunal’s decision to give a ruling by reasoned order 
            10. Under Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure, where an action is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the Tribunal may decide at any time to give a ruling by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings.
            11. In the present case, the Tribunal considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the file before it and decides, pursuant to Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure and before the defendant has been notified of the action, to give a ruling by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings (see, to that effect, order of 7 July 2011 in Pirri  v Commission , F‑21/11, EU:F:2011:108, paragraph 10 and the case-law cited).
            The application to set aside made by the applicant 
            12. Pursuant to the procedural provisions set out in paragraphs 2 to 4 of this order, it should be borne in mind that (i) a judgment can be given by default only against a defendant and only if that party has failed to file written submissions in defence within the prescribed time-limit, and (ii) only that defendant is entitled to make an application to set aside that judgment.
            13. In the present case, since Ms Gyarmathy was not the defaulting defendant in the case giving rise to the judgment by default delivered on 18 May 2015 in Gyarmathy  v EMCDDA (F‑79/13, EU:F:2015:49), she is not entitled to make an application to set aside that judgment.
            14. In those circumstances, the action is manifestly inadmissible.
            Costs 
            15. As this order has been made without the EMCDDA having been notified of the action and the applicant has not applied for costs, the latter must be ordered to bear her own costs, in accordance with Article 103(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
            
            Operative part
            On those grounds,
            THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
            (Second Chamber)
            hereby orders:
            1. The application to set aside made by Ms Gyarmathy is manifestly inadmissible. 
            2. Ms Gyarmathy shall bear her own costs. 
            Luxembourg, 16 July 2015.