ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

14 November 2013

Case T‑229/13 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — Application lodged by fax and original subsequently received not the same — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

Appeal:      against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 in Case F‑113/11 Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:      The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s handwritten signature different from that on the original application sent by post — Consequence — Date of receipt of fax not taken into account for assessing whether the time-limit for bringing proceedings has been met

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 34(1) and (6))

Where the signature of the lawyer representing an applicant appearing at the bottom of the application lodged by fax is not identical to that appearing on the original of the application lodged subsequently, the application sent by fax cannot be taken into account for the purposes of compliance with the time-limit for bringing proceedings.

In European Union civil service disputes, Article 34(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal provides that the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading is received at the Registry by any technical means of communication available to the Tribunal is to be taken into consideration for the purposes of compliance with the time-limits for taking steps in proceedings, provided that the signed original of the pleading is lodged at the Registry no later than ten days after the copy of the original was received. Consequently, where it appears that the original of the pleading which is lodged in hard copy at the Registry within ten days of a copy being faxed to the Civil Service Tribunal does not bear the same signature as that appearing on the faxed document, it must be held that what has been received by the Registry of the Tribunal are two separate pleadings, each bearing a signature of its own, even where each of those signatures has been appended by the same person. The strict application of Article 34(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal serves the requirements of legal certainty and the need to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice.

(see paras 14, 19)

See:

C‑426/10 P Bell & Ross v OHIM [2011] ECR I‑8849, para. 43 and the case-law cited therein

29 November 2011, T‑345/11 ENISA v EDPS, not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17; 3 October 2012, T‑360/10 Tecnimed v OHIM — Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK), not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17 and the case-law cited therein