ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COURT

15 July 2011

Case T-213/11 P(I)

College of Staff Representatives of the European Investment Bank and Others

v

Eberhard Bömcke

(Appeal – Civil service – Application for leave to intervene before the Civil Service Tribunal – Calculation of the deadline – Application out of time)

Appeal: brought against the order of the President of the Second Chamber of the EU Civil Service Tribunal of 17 March 2011 in Case F‑95/10 INT Bömcke v EIB, not published in the ECR, and seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:      The appeal is dismissed. The College of Staff Representatives of the European Investment Bank, Mr Jean-Pierre Bodson, Mr Evangelos Kourgias, Mr Manuel Sutil, Mr Patrick Vanhoudt and Ms Marie-Christel Heger are to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Time-limits – Application for leave to intervene before the Civil Service Tribunal – Method of calculating the time-limit

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 100(2) and (3) and 109(1))

Article 109(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal provides that any application to intervene must be made within four weeks of the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the notice referred to in Article 37(2) of those Rules of Procedure. Furthermore, Article 100(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal states that if that period ends on a Saturday, Sunday or official holiday it is to be extended until the end of the first following working day and that the prescribed time-limits are to be extended on account of distance by a single period of 10 days.

According to the consistent case-law of the Court of Justice and of this Court, the extension on account of distance is not to be regarded as a separate time-limit from the procedural time-limit but merely as an extension of the latter time-limit. Thus, where a complete time-limit, including the single period on account of distance, ends on a Saturday, Sunday or official holiday, it is to be extended until the end of the first following working day. There is no difference in their wording between the relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and those of the Civil Service Tribunal that would support the conclusion that Article 100(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal should be given a different interpretation.

Nor is that interpretation contrary to fundamental rights in that it restricts the right to bring proceedings and, in particular, the right to intervene in the proceedings. The time-limit for bringing an action is a matter of public policy which was established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain and to avoid discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice. Furthermore, Article 100(2) and (3) and Article 109 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal cannot constitute an infringement of the right to bring proceedings, in so far as those provisions do not restrict the right of individual action and, in particular, the right to intervene in the proceedings to the extent of impairing the very substance of that right. The time-limit laid down in the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal for making an application to intervene enables a fair balance to be struck between the fundamental right to intervene in proceedings and the proper administration of justice.

(see paras 9, 10, 17, 20, 22)

See: C‑122/90 Emsland-Stärke v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 9; C‑246/95 Coen [1997] ECR I-403, para. 21; T‑121/96 and T‑151/96 Mutual Aid Administration Services v Commission [1997] ECR II‑1355, paras 38 and 39; T‑85/97 Horeca-Wallonie v Commission [1997] ECR II‑2113, paras 25 and 26; judgment of 13 January 2009 in T‑456/08 SGAE v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 12