ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

20 March 2014

Case F‑33/13

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application submitted by fax within the prescribed period — Handwritten signature of the lawyer different from that on the original of the application sent by post — Action lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, inter alia, annulment of the decision by which the European Commission refused to pay him a sum corresponding to financial compensation for annual leave not used. Before the original application was lodged by post, a document purported to be a copy of the original application lodged by post was sent on 8 April 2013 by fax to the Registry of the Tribunal, which received it the same day.

Held:      The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Mr Marcuccio is to bear his own costs.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application submitted by fax within the prescribed period — Handwritten signature of the lawyer different from that on the original of the application sent by post — Consequence — Date of receipt of the fax not taken into account in order to determine compliance with the period prescribed for bringing an action

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 34(6); Staff Regulations, Art. 91(3))

As regards the relationship between the signature of the lawyer representing an applicant in an application sent by fax to the Civil Service Tribunal and the signature appended to the original application lodged no later than ten days thereafter, where the signature at the bottom of the faxed application is not the same as the signature on the original application lodged subsequently, the faxed application cannot be taken into account for the purpose of assessing compliance with the time-limit for bringing an action.

Indeed, the strict application by the Tribunal of Article 34(6) of its Rules of Procedure serves the requirements of legal certainty and the need to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice.

(see paras 30, 31)

See:

22 September 2011, C‑426/10 P Bell & Ross v OHIM, para. 43

14 November 2013, T‑283/13 P Marcuccio v Commission, paras 14 and 19

11 March 2013, F‑131/12 Marcuccio v Commission, para. 24