Judgments nº T-223/06 P of Court of First Instance of the European Communities, May 23, 2007

• Resolution Date: May 23, 2007
• Issuing Organization: Court of First Instance of the European Communities
• Decision Number: T-223/06 P

In Case T-223/06 P,

APPEAL against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006 in Case F-102/05 Eistrup v Parliament [2006] ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II-0000, seeking to have that order set aside,

European Parliament, represented by H. von Hertzen and L.†Knudsen, acting as Agents,

applicant,

the other party to the proceedings being

Ole Eistrup, official of the European Parliament, residing in Knebel (Denmark), represented by S. Hjelmborg and M. HonorÈ, lawyers,

applicant at first instance,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Appeal Chamber),

composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Jaeger, J. Pirrung, M.†Vilaras and H.†Legal, Judges,

Registrar:†E. Coulon,

gives the following

Judgment

1††††††††By its appeal lodged pursuant to Article 9 of the Annex to the Statute of the Court of Justice, the Parliament seeks to have set aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 13 July 2006 in Case F-102/05 Eistrup v Parliament [2006] ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II-0000 (-the order under appeal-), by which the Civil Service Tribunal rejected the plea of inadmissibility which the Parliament had raised in respect of a breach of the first subparagraph of Article 43(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable mutatis mutandis to the Civil Service Tribunal according 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), on the ground that the application initiating proceedings, instead of being signed by hand by the lawyer of the applicant at first instance, bore a stamp reproducing that lawyer-s signature.

†The procedure at first instance

2††††††††By an action brought initially before the Court of First Instance on 20 October 2005, Mr Eistrup sought, first, annulment of the decision of 13 December 2004 by which the Parliament had fixed the amount of compensation which he claimed was inadequate, to be paid to him on account of his belated reinstatement after leave on personal grounds and annulment of the decision of 12 July 2005 dismissing his complaint against the decision of 13 December 2004 and, secondly, an order requiring the Parliament to compensate him for the damage suffered.

3††††††††After finding that the application bore a stamp reproducing the signature of Mr†Eistrup-s lawyer, by letter of 25 October 2005 the Registry of the Court of First Instance invited that lawyer to submit observations as to whether the first subparagraph of Article 43(1) of the Rules of Procedure had been complied with, according to which -[t]he original of every pleading must be signed by the party-s agent or lawyer.-

4††††††††Mr Eistrup-s lawyer replied on 5 November 2005, confirming that he was indeed the person whose signature was appended to the application. He added that, as in Danish law, this method of signature should be accepted.

5††††††††Thereafter, the Registry of the Court of First Instance served the application initiating proceedings on the Parliament together with a copy of the reply mentioned above.

6††††††††By separate document lodged on 15 December 2005, the Parliament raised a plea of inadmissibility pursuant to Article 114(1) of the Rules of Procedure. The applicant submitted his observations on that plea on 10 April 2006.

7††††††††By order of 15 December 2005 the Court of First Instance referred the present case to the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 3(3) of Decision 2004/752. The action was registered at the Registry of the Tribunal under number F-102/05.

8††††††††On 16 June 2006 Mr Eistrup-s lawyer, at the request of the Civil Service Tribunal, sent the Registry of the Tribunal a version of the application signed in his own hand.

9††††††††In those circumstances, by the order under appeal the Civil Service Tribunal rejected the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Parliament.

†The order under appeal

10††††††After pointing out that in the order of 24 February 2000 in Case T-37/98 FTA and Others v Council [2000] ECR†II-373 (-the FTA order-), paragraph 26, the Court of First Instance had interpreted the first subparagraph of Article 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure as requiring a handwritten signature from the applicant-s lawyer, the Civil Service Tribunal accepted that use by Mr Eistrup-s lawyer of a stamp reproducing his signature amounted to an irregularity. However, according to the Civil Service Tribunal, such an irregularity, established at the stage of lodging the application, could not lead to the inadmissibility of the action in the light of the circumstances of the case (paragraphs 22 to 24 of the order under appeal).

11††††††In that respect, the Civil Service Tribunal considered, in paragraph 25 of the order under appeal, that the explanations provided by Mr Eistrup-s lawyer in reply to the letter of the Registry of the Court of First Instance, dated 25 October 2005, did not leave any doubt as to the fact that that lawyer was indeed the signatory of the application. In that context, the Civil Service Tribunal referred to Case T-34/02 Le Levant 001 and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-267, paragraph 56, in relation to the authority granted under Article 44(5)(b) of the Rules of Procedure by the representative of a legal person to a lawyer for the purposes of lodging an application, an authority which had been signed using a stamp.

12††††††In paragraph 26 of the order under appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal pointed out that, further to the explanations of Mr Eistrup-s lawyer, the Registry of the Court of First Instance had served the application initiating proceedings on the Parliament. It then added, in paragraph 27, that it had received from Mr Eistrup a version of the application initiating proceedings signed by hand by his lawyer.

13††††††In paragraph 28 of the order under appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal found that the Parliament had in turn failed to mention any evidence showing infringement of the rights of the defence in the event that the application was declared admissible in the light of the requirements in the first subparagraph of Article 43(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

14††††††The Civil Service Tribunal concluded that, in the light of the circumstances of the case, to declare the action inadmissible, for failure to comply with such a procedural formality, which does not have any substantial effect on the administration of justice, would be liable to have a disproportionate adverse effect on Mr Eistrup-s fundamental right of access to a court or tribunal, particularly at first instance (paragraph 29 of the order under appeal).

15††††††The Parliament was notified of the order under appeal on 17 July 2006.

†The appeal

†Procedure

16††††††By document lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 23 August 2006, the Parliament brought the present appeal.

17††††††Article 146 of the Rules of Procedure provides that, after the submission of pleadings, the Court of First Instance, acting on a report from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the parties, may decide to rule on the appeal without an oral procedure unless one of the parties submits an application setting out the reasons for which he wishes to be heard. The application is to be submitted within a period of one month from notification to the party of the closure of the written procedure.

18††††††In his response lodged on 10 November 2006, Mr Eistrup asked the Court to arrange a hearing -in the light of the decisive nature of the formality at issue for [him] and his action against the Parliament-.

19††††††That request must be rejected, first, as being made too early in the light of the provisions of Article 146 of the Rules of Procedure and, secondly, as failing to set out the clear and specific reasons for which...