Corte di giustizia UE/2017

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 10 October 2017 ( * ) (Appeal — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure — Essential procedural requirements — Representation by a lawyer — Manifest inadmissibility) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑405/17 P, APPEAL under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 4 July 2017, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], residing in Troyan (Bulgaria), applicant, the other party to the proceedings being: [OSCURATO:PERSONA], defendant at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) composed of E. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur), and M. Berger, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: E. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], having decided, after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to give a decision by reasoned order, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By her appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] asks the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice to set aside the order of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 24 April 2017, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (T‑814/16, not published, EU:T:2017:302) (‘the order under appeal’), by which that court declared her action inadmissible. The proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the order under appeal 2 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] brought an action by application lodged at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 18 November 2016. According to the order under appeal, that action claimed that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should order the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to implement a decree purported to have been adopted by [OSCURATO:PERSONA], former [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], nominating [OSCURATO:PERSONA] as ambassador of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Bulgaria to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Germany. 3 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had brought that action herself on the basis of her signature alone, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] applied [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 126 of its Rules of Procedure, which enables it, without taking further steps in the proceedings, to give a decision by reasoned order, where the action is manifestly inadmissible. 4 Thus, having recalled, in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the order under appeal, the settled case-law relating to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 19 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in paragraph 8 of the order under appeal, dismissed that action as being manifestly inadmissible. The appeal 5 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, where an appeal is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may at any time, acting on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], dismiss that appeal in whole or in part by reasoned order, without opening the oral procedure. 6 In the present case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the case-file and decides, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure, to give a decision by reasoned order. 7 The appeal was lodged by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on the basis of her signature alone. 8 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] the third and fourth paragraphs of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 19 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: ‘[Parties other than the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the institutions of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], other than the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which are parties to the Agreement on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3), and the EFTA [OSCURATO:PERSONA],] must be represented by a lawyer. Only a lawyer authorised to practise before a court of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] or of another [OSCURATO:PERSONA] which is a party to the Agreement on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may represent or assist a party before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA].’ 9 The first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 21 of that Statute provides: ‘A case shall be brought before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice by a written application addressed to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. The application shall contain the applicant’s name and permanent address and the description of the signatory, the name of the party or names of the parties against whom the application is made, the subject-matter of the dispute, the form of order sought and a brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based.’ 10 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 57(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, ‘the original of every procedural document must bear the handwritten signature of the party’s agent or lawyer ...’. 11 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 119(1) and (3) of those Rules of Procedure, applicable to the appeal under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 168(2) of those Rules, provide: ‘1.      A party may be represented only by his agent or lawyer. ... 3.      The lawyer acting for a party must ... lodge at the Registry a certificate that he is authorised to practise before a court of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] or of another [OSCURATO:PERSONA] which is a party to the [Agreement on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]].’ 12 According to the settled case-law of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it is unambiguously apparent from the third paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 19 and the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 21 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 57(1) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 119(1) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice that an applicant must be represented by a person authorised to do so and that only an application signed by such a person may be validly referred to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Since no derogation from or exception to that obligation is provided for by that Statute or by those Rules of Procedure, the submission of an application signed by the applicant himself cannot therefore be sufficient for the purpose of bringing an action (see order of 16 March 2006, Correia de Matos v Commission , C‑200/05 P, not published, EU:C:2006:187, paragraph 11 and the case-law cited). 13 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] argues that she is a lawyer and, consequently, may represent herself. 14 In that regard, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has held that the requirement as to the position and status as an independent lawyer is based on a conception of the lawyer’s role as collaborating in the administration of justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], set out in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 19 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which derives from the legal traditions common to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. That role consists in collaborating in the administration of justice and being required to provide, in full independence and in the overriding interests of that cause, such legal assistance as the client needs. On that basis, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has held that the expression ‘other parties must be represented by a lawyer’ in the third paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 19 of its Statute means that a party and his counsel cannot be one and the same person (see order of 6 June 2013, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Ombudsman , C‑535/12 P, not published, EU:C:2013:373, paragraphs 19 and 20 and the case-law cited). 15 According to the settled case-law of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], an action brought on the basis of the applicant’s signature alone is inadmissible and the corresponding case must be removed from the register of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (see orders of 16 March 2006, Correia de Matos v Commission , C‑200/05 P, not published, EU:C:2006:187, paragraph 12, and of 6 October 2011, Campailla v Commission , C‑265/11 P, not published, EU:C:2011:644, paragraph 13). 16 In those circumstances it is necessary to declare [OSCURATO:PERSONA] appeal manifestly inadmissible and to remove the case from the register of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] appeal is inadmissible. 2. The case is removed from the register of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Luxembourg, 10 October 2017. A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] E. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] * Language of the case: English.