ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

3 December 2012

Case F‑45/12

BT

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Non-renewal of the contract — Insufficient grounds stated for the action — Action manifestly inadmissible)

Application: Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, whereby BT seeks, in particular, annulment of the Commission’s decision not to renew his contract as a member of the contract staff (‘the decision at issue’).

Held:      The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Lack of clarity — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19(3) and Annex I, Art. 7(1)); Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 35(1)(e))

The claims in an application which do not satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, in so far as no plea in law emerges with sufficient clarity to be readily and precisely identifiable by the defendant and by the Tribunal, must be rejected as inadmissible. Under Article 35(1)(e), the application is to state the pleas in law and arguments of fact and law relied on. Those particulars must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare a defence and the Tribunal to rule on the action, if necessary without any further information. In order to ensure legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, it is necessary, in order for an action to be admissible, that the essential matters of law and fact relied on are stated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself. While it should be acknowledged that the statement of the grounds of the action need not conform to the terminology and the layout of the Rules of Procedure and that it may be sufficient that those grounds are expressed in terms of their substance rather than of their legal classification, the application must none the less set out those grounds with sufficient clarity.

In that regard, the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to proceedings before the Tribunal by virtue of Article 7(1) of Annex I thereto, provides that parties — other than Member States; institutions of the European Union; States which are party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area; and the European Free Trade Area Surveillance Authority, which is referred to in that agreement — must be represented by a lawyer. The main role of that lawyer, as legal representative, is to ensure that the claims set out in the application are based on sufficiently intelligible and coherent arguments, in view of the fact that, as a rule, the written procedure before the Tribunal consists in no more than one exchange of written pleadings.

(see paras 15-19, 21)

See:

28 April 1993, T‑85/92 De Hoe v Commission, para. 21

15 February 2011, F‑76/09 AH v Commission, paras 29 and 31