ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)
25 May 2007(*)
(Manifest lack of jurisdiction)
In Case T-46/07,
Alpha Omega Solicitors, established in London (United Kingdom), represented by K. Patel, Solicitor,
applicant,
v
Council of Europe,
defendant,
ACTION brought against the Council of Europe seeking an interim order and/or declaration on the applicant’s client’s legal position in connection with a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: M. Vilaras, President, M. E. Martins Ribeiro and K. Jürimäe, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Facts and procedure
1 On 2 March 2006, the applicant lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of one of its clients who was being prosecuted in the United Kingdom for an offence under the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
2 By letter of 18 April 2006, the applicant applied to the European Court of Human Rights for interim measures, under Rule 39 of the Rules of the European Court of Human Rights.
3 By letter of 25 April 2006, the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights informed the applicant that the situation outlined in its application of 18 April 2006 was not one of those in which the measure provided for in Rule 39 could be applied. In the circumstances, the Registrar requested the applicant to inform him whether its client wished to maintain her application.
4 On 1 May 2006, the applicant wrote to the secretary general of the Council of Europe, requesting an interim measure on behalf of its client, as there was an imminent risk of irreparable damage. The secretariat of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe replied to this letter on 5th May 2006, indicating that the Committee of Ministers was unable to intervene in any proceedings pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
5 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 15 February 2007, the applicant brought the present action.
Form of order sought by the applicant
6 The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
– Issue an interim order and/or declaration on the applicant’s client’s legal position with regard to the client’s conviction and the declaration thereof pending the outcome of her case before the European Court of Human Rights.
Law
7 Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, where it is clear that the Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of an action, the Court of First Instance may give a decision on the action by reasoned order, without taking further steps in the proceedings.
8 In this instance, the Court of First Instance considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the file and decides, pursuant to that article, to give a decision on the action without taking further steps in the proceedings.
9 By its application, the applicant seeks an interim measures order or a declaration concerning its client’s legal position in connection with a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights.
10 The powers of the Court of First Instance are those set out in Article 225 EC and Article 140a EA, as specified in Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. Under those provisions, the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction only in actions against Community institutions and organs established by the Treaties or by acts adopted for their application.
11 Further, in proceedings before the Community judicature, there is no remedy whereby the Court can adopt a position by means of a general declaration on a matter which exceeds the scope of the main proceedings (Case T‑338/02 Segi and others v Council [2004] ECR II-1647, paragraph 48).
12 In the present case, it is apparent that the author of the contested act or conduct in question is neither an institution nor an organ of the Community.
13 In the circumstances, it is unnecessary to examine whether the applicant, a firm of solicitors, may bring this action in its own name, even though the act or conduct in question only directly affects one of its clients, or whether Mrs. Patel, a solicitor who is a member of the applicant firm, may validly represent that firm before the Court of First Instance.
14 Suffice it to say that, in any event, the Court of First Instance manifestly lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on the present action.
15 It follows from the above considerations that the present action must be dismissed, without it being necessary to serve it on the defendant.
Costs
16 As the present order was adopted prior to service of the application on the defendant and before the latter could have incurred costs, it is sufficient to decide that the applicant must bear its own costs pursuant to Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
On those grounds,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed.
2. The applicant shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 25 May 2007.