Fons Iuris
Torna alla ricerca
Corte di giustizia UEsentenza

Corte di giustizia UE/2015

ECLI:EU:F:2015:92
Testo integrale del provvedimento

Testo integrale del provvedimento

62013FO0079(01)_EN

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] part

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] F‑79/13 OP,

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] made on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 124 of the Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], former temporary member of staff of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for Drugs and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], residing in Györ (Hungary), represented by K. Eöri, lawyer, applicant, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for Drugs and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EMCDDA), defendant,

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

([OSCURATO:PERSONA]),

composed of K. Bradley (Rapporteur), President, H. Kreppel and M.I. Rofes i Pujol, Judges, Registrar: W. Hakenberg, Registrar, makes the following

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

1. By application received at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 24 June 2015, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] seeks to challenge, by means of an application to set aside made on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 124 of the Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (which reproduces — with amendments — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 116(4) to (6) of the Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in force until 30 September 2014 (‘the former Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’)), the judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 18 May 2015 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v EMCDDA (F‑79/13, EU:F:2015:49) given by default against the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for Drugs and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EMCDDA).

Legal context

2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 41 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states: ‘Where the defending party, after having been duly summoned, fails to file written submissions in defence, judgment shall be given against that party by default.

An objection may be lodged against the judgment within one month of it being notified.

The objection shall not have the effect of staying enforcement of the judgment by default unless the Court of Justice decides otherwise.’

3. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 121 of the Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], entitled ‘Judgments by default’, provides as follows: ‘1.

If a defendant on whom an application initiating proceedings has been duly served fails to respond to the application in the proper form and within the time-limit prescribed, the applicant may apply to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for judgment by default. ...

3. A judgment by default shall be enforceable. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may, however, grant a stay of enforcement until it has given its decision on any application under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 41 of the Statute [of the Court] to set aside the judgment ...’

4. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 124 of the Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], entitled ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] to set aside’, provides: ‘1. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may be made pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 41 of the Statute [of the Court] to set aside a judgment by default.

2. The application to set aside the judgment must be made within one month from the date of service of the judgment. It must be submitted in the form prescribed by Articles 45 and 50 of these Rules. ...

5. The proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with Articles 36 to 48, 56 to 85 and 90 to 114. ...’

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

5. By application received at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 12 November 2013 and registered as [OSCURATO:PERSONA] F‑79/13, the applicant brought an action (‘the action in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] F‑79/13’) seeking the annulment of several decisions adopted by the EMCDDA concerning a request for assistance in respect of alleged psychological harassment and the decision not to renew her contract as a temporary member of staff.

In her action, the applicant claimed that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should, inter alia: – annul the decision of 11 September 2012 by which the Director of the EMCDDA rejected her transfer request; – annul the note of 14 September 2012 by which the Head of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the EMCDDA informed her that her contract would expire on 30 April 2013; – order the payment of compensation in respect of the material harm suffered, assessed at EUR 430 202; – order the payment of compensation in respect of the non-material harm suffered, assessed at EUR 120 000.

6. As the EMCDDA failed to lodge its defence within the prescribed time-limit, the applicant applied to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for judgment by default of the action in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] F‑79/13 on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 116(1) of the former Rules in [OSCURATO:PERSONA].

7. By letter of 24 April 2014, the parties were informed of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decision to apply [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 116 of the former Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and to close the written procedure.

8. By a judgment given by default on 18 May 2015 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v EMCDDA (F‑79/13, EU:F:2015:49), the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dismissed the action in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] F‑79/13. Forms of order sought by the applicant

9. The applicant claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: – set aside the judgment given by default on 18 May 2015 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v EMCDDA (F‑79/13, EU:F:2015:49); – give a judgment in line with the forms of order set out in the action in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] F‑79/13, as recalled in paragraph 5 of this order. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decision to give a ruling by reasoned order

10. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 81 of the Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], where an action is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may decide at any time to give a ruling by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings.

11. In the present case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the file before it and decides, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 81 of the Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and before the defendant has been notified of the action, to give a ruling by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings (see, to that effect, order of 7 July 2011 in Pirri v Commission , F‑21/11, EU:F:2011:108, paragraph 10 and the case-law cited).

The application to set aside made by the applicant

12. Pursuant to the procedural provisions set out in paragraphs 2 to 4 of this order, it should be borne in mind that (i) a judgment can be given by default only against a defendant and only if that party has failed to file written submissions in defence within the prescribed time-limit, and (ii) only that defendant is entitled to make an application to set aside that judgment.

13. In the present case, since [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was not the defaulting defendant in the case giving rise to the judgment by default delivered on 18 May 2015 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v EMCDDA (F‑79/13, EU:F:2015:49), she is not entitled to make an application to set aside that judgment.

14. In those circumstances, the action is manifestly inadmissible. Costs

15. As this order has been made without the EMCDDA having been notified of the action and the applicant has not applied for costs, the latter must be ordered to bear her own costs, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103(3) of the Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] part On those grounds,

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

([OSCURATO:PERSONA])

hereby orders:

1. The application to set aside made by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is manifestly inadmissible.

2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall bear her own costs. Luxembourg, 16 July 2015.

Anonimizzato ex art. 52 D.Lgs. 196/2003
62013FO0079(01)_EN [OSCURATO:PERSONA] part [OSCURATO:PERSONA] F‑79/13 OP, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] made on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 124 of the Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], former temporary member of staff of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for Drugs and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], residing in Györ (Hungary), represented by K. Eöri, lawyer, applicant, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for Drugs and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EMCDDA), defendant, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of K. Bradley (Rapporteur), President, H. Kreppel and M.I. Rofes i Pujol, Judges, Registrar: W. Hakenberg, Registrar, makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1. By application received at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 24 June 2015, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] seeks to challenge, by means of an application to set aside made on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 124 of the Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (which reproduces — with amendments — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 116(4) to (6) of the Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in force until 30 September 2014 (‘the former Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’)), the judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 18 May 2015 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v EMCDDA (F‑79/13, EU:F:2015:49) given by default against the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for Drugs and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EMCDDA). Legal context 2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 41 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states: ‘Where the defending party, after having been duly summoned, fails to file written submissions in defence, judgment shall be given against that party by default. An objection may be lodged against the judgment within one month of it being notified. The objection shall not have the effect of staying enforcement of the judgment by default unless the Court of Justice decides otherwise.’ 3. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 121 of the Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], entitled ‘Judgments by default’, provides as follows: ‘1. If a defendant on whom an application initiating proceedings has been duly served fails to respond to the application in the proper form and within the time-limit prescribed, the applicant may apply to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for judgment by default. ... 3. A judgment by default shall be enforceable. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may, however, grant a stay of enforcement until it has given its decision on any application under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 41 of the Statute [of the Court] to set aside the judgment ...’ 4. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 124 of the Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], entitled ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] to set aside’, provides: ‘1. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may be made pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 41 of the Statute [of the Court] to set aside a judgment by default. 2. The application to set aside the judgment must be made within one month from the date of service of the judgment. It must be submitted in the form prescribed by Articles 45 and 50 of these Rules. ... 5. The proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with Articles 36 to 48, 56 to 85 and 90 to 114. ...’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5. By application received at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 12 November 2013 and registered as [OSCURATO:PERSONA] F‑79/13, the applicant brought an action (‘the action in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] F‑79/13’) seeking the annulment of several decisions adopted by the EMCDDA concerning a request for assistance in respect of alleged psychological harassment and the decision not to renew her contract as a temporary member of staff. In her action, the applicant claimed that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should, inter alia: – annul the decision of 11 September 2012 by which the Director of the EMCDDA rejected her transfer request; – annul the note of 14 September 2012 by which the Head of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the EMCDDA informed her that her contract would expire on 30 April 2013; – order the payment of compensation in respect of the material harm suffered, assessed at EUR 430 202; – order the payment of compensation in respect of the non-material harm suffered, assessed at EUR 120 000. 6. As the EMCDDA failed to lodge its defence within the prescribed time-limit, the applicant applied to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for judgment by default of the action in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] F‑79/13 on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 116(1) of the former Rules in [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 7. By letter of 24 April 2014, the parties were informed of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decision to apply [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 116 of the former Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and to close the written procedure. 8. By a judgment given by default on 18 May 2015 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v EMCDDA (F‑79/13, EU:F:2015:49), the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dismissed the action in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] F‑79/13. Forms of order sought by the applicant 9. The applicant claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: – set aside the judgment given by default on 18 May 2015 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v EMCDDA (F‑79/13, EU:F:2015:49); – give a judgment in line with the forms of order set out in the action in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] F‑79/13, as recalled in paragraph 5 of this order. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decision to give a ruling by reasoned order 10. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 81 of the Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], where an action is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may decide at any time to give a ruling by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings. 11. In the present case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the file before it and decides, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 81 of the Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and before the defendant has been notified of the action, to give a ruling by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings (see, to that effect, order of 7 July 2011 in Pirri v Commission , F‑21/11, EU:F:2011:108, paragraph 10 and the case-law cited). The application to set aside made by the applicant 12. Pursuant to the procedural provisions set out in paragraphs 2 to 4 of this order, it should be borne in mind that (i) a judgment can be given by default only against a defendant and only if that party has failed to file written submissions in defence within the prescribed time-limit, and (ii) only that defendant is entitled to make an application to set aside that judgment. 13. In the present case, since [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was not the defaulting defendant in the case giving rise to the judgment by default delivered on 18 May 2015 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v EMCDDA (F‑79/13, EU:F:2015:49), she is not entitled to make an application to set aside that judgment. 14. In those circumstances, the action is manifestly inadmissible. Costs 15. As this order has been made without the EMCDDA having been notified of the action and the applicant has not applied for costs, the latter must be ordered to bear her own costs, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 103(3) of the Rules of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] part On those grounds, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1. The application to set aside made by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is manifestly inadmissible. 2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall bear her own costs. Luxembourg, 16 July 2015.
Sentenza Corte di giustizia UE/2015 — Fons Iuris — Fons Iuris