ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

19 June 2014

Case T‑503/13 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal — Principle of the lawful judge — Dismissal of the action at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — Application filed by facsimile bearing a non-handwritten signature of the lawyer — Application filed by facsimile and original filed later not identical — Action brought out of time — Application seeking payment of a certain sum for a quarter of the costs incurred in the proceedings in Case F‑56/09 — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

Appeal:      against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 12 July 2013 in Marcuccio v Commission (F‑32/12), seeking the setting aside of that order.

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 at the present instance.

Summary

1.      Judicial proceedings — Reassignment of a case as a result of internal restructuring in the Civil Service Tribunal — Breach of the principle of the lawful judge — None

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 14)

2.      Judicial proceedings — Reassignment of a case as a result of internal restructuring in the Civil Service Tribunal — Designation as single Judge of a judge other than the Judge-Rapporteur in a Chamber of three Judges — Breach of the principle of the lawful judge — None

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 14)

3.      Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Lawyer’s handwritten signature — Application filed by fax bearing a stamped signature — Not consistent with the signature on the original of the application — Not possible to take account of the date of receipt of the fax when 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))

1.      As regards the conditions for referral of a case to a single Judge provided for in Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal and the rights of the parties in connection with the application of those conditions, first, the Rules of Procedure lay down the conditions warranting such a referral, which are that a case assigned to a chamber may be suitable to be heard and determined by a single Judge having regard to the lack of difficulty of the questions of law or fact raised, to the limited importance of the case and to the absence of other special circumstances. Second, the procedure laid down in Article 14 allows the parties to state their views before the decision to refer the case to a single Judge is taken. It follows that the principle of the lawful judge is not infringed.

(see para. 14)

2.      In a case where the name of the Judge-Rapporteur sitting in a Chamber of three Judges before a decision is taken to refer the case to a single Judge is not stated in the documents in the case at first instance, that omission does not mean that, in breach of the principle of the lawful judge, the Judge-Rapporteur from the Chamber of three Judges has not been designated as the single Judge.

(see para. 15)

3.      Where the signature on a faxed document, whether a stamped signature or a handwritten signature, does not correspond to the signature on the original application lodged subsequently, that discrepancy results in the same legal consequences, that is to say, the faxed document cannot be taken into account for the purpose of assessing whether the time-limit for bringing proceedings has been met.

(see para. 22)