ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

12 October 2009

Case T-283/09 P

Laleh Aayhan and Others

v

European Parliament

(Appeals – Civil service – Auxiliary staff – Time-limit for appeal – Lateness – Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

Appeal: brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2009 in Case F-65/07 Aayhan and Others v Parliament [2009] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Ms Laleh Aayhan and the 78 other former members of the European Parliament’s auxiliary staff whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment are to bear their own costs.

Summary

Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Proceedings time-barred – Force majeure – Concept

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45)

The concepts of ‘unforeseeable circumstances’ or ‘force majeure’ within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice require there to be abnormal difficulties, independent of the will of the person concerned and apparently inevitable, even if all due care is taken. Those concepts both contain an objective element relating to abnormal circumstances unconnected with the person 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 person 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. Thus, the concept of force majeure does not apply to a situation in which, objectively, a diligent and prudent person would have been able to take the necessary steps before the expiry of the period prescribed for instituting proceedings. That applies where the main reason for the lateness of an appeal may lie in the fact that the appellant’s counsel used a ‘registered bundle not suitable for international mail’ and that he therefore did not comply with some of the criteria enabling the postal service operator to guarantee the correct delivery of the item.

(see paras 19-20)

See: 209/83 Ferriera Valsabbia v Commission [1984] ECR 3089, para. 22; C‑195/91 P Bayer v Commission [1994] ECR I‑5619, paras 31 and 32; C‑325/03 P Zuazaga Meabe v OHIM [2005] ECR I‑403, para. 25; C‑242/07 P Belgium v Commission [2007] ECR I‑9757, para. 17