In Case T‑12/08

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

11 March 2010(*)

(Legal aid)

In Case T‑12/08P‑RENV‑RX‑AJ,

M, former member of the temporary staff of the European Medicines Agency, residing in Broxbourne, Hertfordshire (United Kingdom), represented by J‑N.Louis, lawyer,

appellant,

the other party to the proceedings being

European Medicines Agency (EMA), represented by V.Salvatore and N.RampalOlmedo, acting as Agents,

defendant at first instance,

APPLICATION for legal aid pursuant to Article95 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court,

THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber),

composed of M.Jaeger (Rapporteur), President, J.Azizi, N.J.Forwood, O.Czúcz and I.Pelikánová, Judges,

Registrar: E.Coulon,

makes the following

Order

1By document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 8January2010, the appellant, MrM, applied for legal aid pursuant to Article95 of the Rules of Procedure for the purpose of proceedings before the General Court following the review judgment of 17December2009 in Case C‑197/09RX‑II M v EMEA [2009] ECRII‑0000, by which the Court of Justice, after finding that the judgment of the Court of First Instance (now ‘the General Court’) of 6 May 2009 in CaseT‑12/08P M v EMEA [2009] ECRII‑12033 adversely affected the unity and the consistency of Community law, set aside points 3 and 5 of the operative part of that judgment, and referred the case back to the General Court.

2In support of that application, the appellant claims that, since 31October2009, the end of the period during which he was receiving monthly unemployment benefit, he has had no other financial means apart from the income of his wife [confidential].(1) The appellant claims that the income is used to pay household expenses [confidential].

3The provisions on legal aid in Article 94 to 97 of the Rules of Procedure apply to the procedure on appeal pursuant to Article 144 thereof.

4In accordance with Article 96(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was invited to submit to the General Court its observations on the appellant’s application. It did not reply within the time limit.

5Under Article 96(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the decision on the application for legal aid is to be taken by way of an order by the President, who may refer the matter to the General Court.

6In the present case, the President of the Appeal Chamber of the General Court has decided to make use of this power.

7Under Article 94(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure, the grant of the legal aid is subject to a dual requirement that, first, the appellant, because of his economic situation, is wholly or partly unable to meet the costs involved in legal assistance and representation before the General Court and, second, that his action does not appear to be manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded.

8In the present case, concerning the first condition, it is apparent from the evidence submitted in support of the application for legal aid that MrM is unable, at least partly, to incur the costs involved in legal assistance and representation before the Court by a lawyer for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court following the review judgment in M v EMEA.

9Next, the General Court, in its judgment in M v EMEA, without being contradicted by the Court of Justice during the review proceedings, did not consider that the appeal brought MrM by was manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded.

10Since MrM is not applying for legal aid to bring a new action but only to put forward his point of view in the proceedings before the General Court following the review judgment M v EMEA, the second requirement for the grant of legal aid is fulfilled.

11It follows from the first and second paragraphs of Article 96(3) of the Rules of Procedure that, if the interested person in his application for legal aid indicates his choice of lawyer, the order granting that application is to designate that lawyer to represent the person concerned, except where his choice is unacceptable.

12In the present case, MrM proposed that MrJean‑Noël Louis should be designated to represent him. The General Court finds no objection to that designation.

13In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 96(3) of the Rules of Procedure, an order granting legal aid may specify an amount to be paid to the lawyer instructed to represent the person concerned or fix a limit which the lawyer’s disbursements and fees may not, in principle, exceed.

14In the present case, it is appropriate to grant MrM legal aid up to a maximum amount of EUR2000, on the basis of supporting documents.

15Under Article 96(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the introduction of an application for legal aid is to suspend the period prescribed for the bringing of an action until the date of notification of the order making a decision on that application.

16Before that provision was introduced into the Rules of Procedure, this Court had already held that, in order to give due effect to an application for legal aid, which has been lodged without the assistance of a lawyer, the lodging of that application before the initiation of proceedings and within the period prescribed for that purpose prevents time from running for the purposes of bringing proceedings until the date on which the applicant is served with the legal aid order (order in Case T‑92/92AJ Lallemand‑Zeller v Commission [1993] ECRII‑31).

17In the present case, it follows that Article 96(4) of the Rules of Procedure must be applied by analogy to proceedings before this Court following review and reference back inasmuch as the period laid down in Article 121c(1) of the Rules of Procedure is to be suspended by the bringing of the application for legal aid until the date of the notification of this order.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

hereby orders:

1.MrM is granted legal aid.

2.MrJean‑NoëlLouis is designated as the lawyer to represent MrM in Case T-12/08P‑RENV‑RX.

3.An amount corresponding to the costs of legal assistance and representation of MrM will be paid to Mr Louis, on the basis of supporting documents, up to a maximum amount of EUR2000.

Luxembourg, 11 March 2010.

* Language of the case: French.

1 – Confidential information hidden.