ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Third Chamber)
13February 2012
Case F‑123/11
Antonio Ayres de Abreu
v
European Economic and Social Committee
(Civil service— Manifest inadmissibility— Representation by a lawyer— Applicant having status of lawyer— Not possible for applicant to be represented by a lawyer who is not a third person)
Application:brought under Article270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article106a thereof, in which Mr Ayres de Abreu seeks, in particular, annulment of the decision of 27April 2011 by which the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) decided to place him on compulsory leave.
Held:The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is to bear his own costs.
Summary
Procedure— Application initiating proceedings— Formal requirements— Application lodged without the assistance of a lawyer— Applicant with the status of lawyer authorised to practise before a national court— No effect— Inadmissibility
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third and fourth paras., and Art.21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art.34(1), first para., and Art. 36)
It follows from the third paragraph of Article19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and in particular the term ‘represented’, as well as from the first paragraph of Article34(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, that in order to bring an action before the Tribunal, a party, within the meaning of that article, must use the services of a third person authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of a State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and that only an application signed by that third person may be validly referred to the Tribunal. Since no derogation from or exception to that obligation is provided for by the Court’s Statute or the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the submission of an application signed by the applicant himself, even if he is a lawyer authorised to practise before a national court, cannot be sufficient for the purpose of bringing an action.
Such a breach is not one which may be rectified under Article36 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal and therefore renders the action manifestly inadmissible.
(see paras 11-13, 16, 17)
See:
5December 1996, C‑174/96P Lopes v Court of Justice, paras 8, 10 and 11; 27November 2007, C‑163/07P Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret and Akar v Commission, paras 25 and 26
13January 2005, T‑184/04 Sulvida v Commission, paras 4 and 8
30October 2008, F‑48/08 Ortega Serrano v Commission, confirmed on appeal by the order of the General Court of the European Union of 9March 2010, T‑583/08P Ortega Serrano v Commission