ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeals Chamber)
14 October 2014 (1)
(Rectification of a order)
In Case T-365/11 P-REC,
APPEAL against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 April 2011 in Case F‑45/10 AO v Commission [2011] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1-0000 seeking to have that order set aside,
AO, a former official of the European Commission, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by P. Lewisch, lawyer,
appellant,
the other party to the proceedings being
European Commission, represented by J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz,
acting as Agents,
defendant at first instance,
THE GENERAL COURT (Appeals Chamber),
composed of M. Jaeger (Rapporteur), President, H. Kanninen and M. van der Woude, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
Order
1 On 12 November 2011 the Court rendered an order in Case T-365/11 P.
2 In accordance with Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the parties having been given an opportunity to lodge their written observations pursuant to Article 84(2) of those rules, it is necessary to rectify the clerical mistakes in paragraphs 32 and 33 of that order.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Appeals Chamber)
hereby orders:
In paragraphs 32 and 33 of the order
“32. The concepts of force majeure and unforeseeable circumstances contain an objective element relating to abnormal circumstances unconnected with the party concerned and a subjective element involving the obligation, on his part, to guard against the consequences of the abnormal event by taking appropriate steps without making unreasonable sacrifices. In particular, the party concerned must pay close attention to the course of the procedure set in motion and, in particular, demonstrate diligence in order to comply with the prescribed time-limits (see order in Belgium v Commission, paragraph 31 above, paragraph 17 and the case law cited).
33. Since it constitutes an exception to a finding of inadmissibility for failure to observe the time-limits for bringing an action, which are mandatory, the concept of unforeseeable circumstances must be invoked and demonstrated by the party who seeks to rely on it (see, to that effect and by analogy with the concept of excusable error, Joined Cases T‑40/07 P and T‑62/07 P de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission and Commission v de Brito Sequeira Carvalho [2009] ECR-SC I B 1-0000 and II B-1-0000, paragraph 205)”
should be read instead of
“32. The concepts of force majeure and unforeseeable circumstances contain an objective element relating to abnormal circumstances unconnected with the trader in question and a subjective element involving the obligation, on his part, to guard against the consequences of the abnormal event by taking appropriate steps without making unreasonable sacrifices. In particular, the trader must pay close attention to the course of the procedure set in motion and, in particular, demonstrate diligence in order to comply with the prescribed time-limits (see order in Belgium v Commission, paragraph 31 above, paragraph 17 and the case‑law cited).
33. Since it constitutes a plea of inadmissibility resulting from failure to comply with time-limits for bringing an appeal, which is a matter of public policy, the concept of unforeseeable circumstances must be raised and argued by the party who seeks to benefit under it (see, to that effect and by analogy with the concept of excusable error, Joined Cases T‑40/07 P and T‑62/07 P de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission and Commission v de Brito Sequeira Carvalho [2009] ECR-SC I‑B‑1-0000 and II‑B-1-0000, paragraph 205)”.
Luxembourg, 14 October 2014.