ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Single judge)

12 July 2013

Case F‑32/12

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure – Application submitted by fax within the prescribed period and signed by means of a stamp or another method of reproducing the lawyer’s signature – Action brought out of time –Manifest inadmissibility)

Application:      brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, whereby Mr Marcuccio seeks, in particular, annulment of the decision of the European Commission to reject his request of 4 January 2011, and also payment of the sum of EUR 3 174.87, representing one quarter of the costs incurred for the purposes of the proceedings leading to the judgment of the Tribunal of 9 June 2010 in Case F‑56/09 Marcuccio v Commission, together with interest and penalty payments. The lodging of the application by post was preceded by the sending by fax, on 7 March 2012, of a document presented as being a copy of the original of the application lodged by post.

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

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Handwritten signature of a lawyer — Substantive rule of strict application — Application submitted by fax — Signature of the lawyer placed by means of a stamp or another means of reproduction — Date of receipt of the fax unable to be taken into account for the purpose of determining compliance with the period prescribed for bringing an action — Lodging of the duly signed application out of time — Action manifestly inadmissible

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 34(1); Staff Regulations, Art. 91(3))

The requirement of a handwritten signature on the application initiating the proceedings for the purposes of the first subparagraph of Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal seeks, with the aim of legal certainty, to guarantee the authenticity of the application and to preclude the risk that it is not in reality the work of the lawyer or counsel authorised for that purpose. That requirement must therefore be regarded as a substantial procedural requirement and be strictly applicable, so that failure to comply with it renders the action inadmissible. In that regard, the indirect and mechanical fashion of ‘signing’ consisting in placing on the application initiating the proceedings a stamp reproducing the signature of the lawyer instructed by the applicant does not in itself enable it to be ascertained that it was necessarily the lawyer himself that signed the procedural document in question.

Consequently, an application lodged by fax and signed by means of a stamp reproducing the lawyer’s signature or another mode of reproduction does not bear the original of the signature of the applicant’s lawyer, contrary to the first subparagraph of Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure, and must for that reason be declared inadmissible.

It follows that the date of receipt of that document sent by fax cannot be applied for the purpose of determining whether the period for bringing an action provided for in Article 91(3) of the Staff Regulations was observed and that the only application that can be taken into account for that purpose is the one received at the Registry of the Civil Service Tribunal and which bears the handwritten signature of the applicant’s lawyer.

Where that application arrives at the Registry after the expiry of the period prescribed for bringing an action, it must be considered to be out of time, thus rendering the action inadmissible.

(see paras 28-29, 32-33)

See:

23 May 2007, T‑223/06 P Parliament v Eistrup, para. 50