ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)
7 July 2014 (1)
(Appeal – Staff cases – Temporary Agents – Period allowed for bringing proceedings – Delay – Appeal clearly inadmissible)
In Case T–39/14 P,
APPEAL against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 October 2013, Gomes Moreira v ECDC, F‑80/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:159, and seeking to have that judgment set aside,
Joaquim Paulo Gomes Moreira, residing in Lisbon (Portugal), represented by C. Marcelino, lawyer,
appellant,
v
the other party to the proceedings being
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC),
defendant at first instance,
THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber),
composed of M. Jaeger, President (Judge-Rapporteur), H. Kanninen and M. van der Woude, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Procedure and form of order sought by the appellant
1 By his notice of appeal lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 7 January 2014, the appellant, Mr Joaquim Paulo Gomes Moreira brought the present appeal.
2 The appellant claims that the Court should:
– grant a new trial in the case leading to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 October 2013, Gomes Moreira v ECDC (F‑80/11, ECR-SC, hereafter the “contested decision”, EU:F:2013:159) and review all the evidence presented for the case before the Civil Service Tribunal;
– assume English as the language of the procedure;
– alternatively, modify the contested decision (EU:F:2013:159);
– not to assign the present case brought before the General Court to a Chamber in which seats a judge of Dutch or German nationality.
Law
3 Under Article 145 of the Rules of Procedure, where the appeal is, in whole or in part, clearly inadmissible or clearly unfounded, the General Court may at any time, acting on a report from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, by reasoned order dismiss the appeal in whole or in part.
4 In the present case, the Court considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the file and has decided, pursuant to that article, to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.
5 Under Article 9(1) of Annex 1 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, an appeal may be brought before the General Court, within two months of notification of the decision appealed against, against final decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal and decisions of that Tribunal disposing of the substantive issues in part only or disposing of a procedural issue concerning a plea of lack of jurisdiction or inadmissibility. In this respect, it should be noted that in accordance with Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure, that time-limit is to be extended on account of distance by a single period of 10 days. According to settled case law, procedural time-limits and of distance are not to be regarded as separate (orders of 15 May 1991, Emsland-Stärke v Commission, C‑122/90, EU:C:1991:209, paragraph 9, of 20 November 1997, Horeca-Wallonie v Commission, T‑85/97, ECR, EU:T:1997:180, paragraphs 25 and 26, and of 15 July 2011, Collège des représentants du personnel de la BEI and Others v Bömcke, T‑213/11 P(I), ECR‑SC, EU:T:2011:397 paragraph 11), so that when the procedural time-limit ends, it must be extended on account of distance by a single period of 10 days.
6 Furthermore, according to settled case law, that period of time is a matter of public policy, since it was established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain and to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice, and the Court must ascertain of its own motion whether that time-limit was observed (judgments of 23 January 1997, Coen, C‑246/95, ECR, EU:C:1997:33, paragraph 21, and of 18 September 1997, Mutual Aid Administration Services v Commission, T-121/96 and T‑151/96, ECR, EU:T:1997:132, paragraphs 38 and 39).
7 In the present case, it is apparent from the documents in the file that the appealed decision (EU:F:2013:159) was notified to the appellant the 24 October 2013. It follows that the time-limit to lodge the appeal as extended on account of distance by a single period of 10 days, expired the 3 January 2014. However, the appellant lodged its notice of appeal the 7 January 2014. The appeal was therefore lodged out of time.
8 In addition, the appellant has not established or even pleaded the existence of unforeseeable circumstances or of force majeure which would allow the Court to vary the time-limit in question on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which applies to the procedure before the General Court by virtue of Article 53 of that Statute.
9 It follows from all of the above considerations that the present appeal must be dismissed as clearly inadmissible without being necessary to examine the admissibility of the appeal lodged in another language than the language of the contested decision (EU:F:2013:159) or of the request to change the language of the proceedings and there is no need for it to be served on the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).
Costs
10 As the present order was adopted prior to service of the notice of appeal on the ECDC and before the latter could have incurred costs, it is sufficient to decide that the appellant must bear its own costs pursuant to Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 144 thereof.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. Mr Joaquim Paulo Gomes Moreira shall pay its own costs.
Luxembourg, 7 July 2014.