ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

22 May 2014

Case F‑58/13

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Adverse effect on the proper administration of justice — Exclusion from the proceedings of a party’s representative)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which, pursuant to Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure, should the Tribunal consider in particular ‘that the conduct of a party’s representative towards the Tribunal … is incompatible with the dignity of the Tribunal or with the requirements of the proper administration of justice’, it will so inform the person concerned. On the same grounds, it ‘may at any time, having heard the person concerned, exclude that person from the proceedings by order. That order shall have immediate effect’.

Held:      Mr A is excluded from the proceedings in accordance with Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure. A copy of this order is to be sent to the competent Spanish and Italian Bars, of which Mr A is a Member.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Representation of the parties — Exclusion from the proceedings of a party’s representative

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 32(1))

The conduct of a lawyer representing a party before the courts of the European Union, which consists of bringing actions on the basis of almost identical facts to those having led to earlier actions dismissed as manifestly unfounded or manifestly inadmissible, or relying on the same pleas in law indicative of the party’s propensity to resort to legal proceedings automatically and indiscriminately, may be regarded as incompatible with the requirements of the proper administration of justice.

That is true where, by such conduct, the lawyer heedlessly contributes to the vexatious conduct of the party concerned, which, taking account of the particularly high number of actions brought by the latter before the Courts of the European Union — of which a lawyer exercising ordinary care must have been aware — has proved to be especially prejudicial to the proper administration of justice.

In those circumstances, it is appropriate to apply Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal by excluding the legal representative from the proceedings. That exclusion requires the party concerned to change his legal representative, but it has no effect on the Civil Service Tribunal’s assessment of the substance of the action, which remains before it unless the party withdraws it.

(see paras 12, 18, 19, 24, 25)