This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/249/35
Case T-223/06 P: Appeal brought on 23 August 2006 by the European Parliament against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal made on 13 July 2006 in Case F-102/05 Ole Eistrup v European Parliament
Case T-223/06 P: Appeal brought on 23 August 2006 by the European Parliament against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal made on 13 July 2006 in Case F-102/05 Ole Eistrup v European Parliament
Case T-223/06 P: Appeal brought on 23 August 2006 by the European Parliament against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal made on 13 July 2006 in Case F-102/05 Ole Eistrup v European Parliament
OJ C 249, 14.10.2006, p. 15–15
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
14.10.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 249/15 |
Appeal brought on 23 August 2006 by the European Parliament against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal made on 13 July 2006 in Case F-102/05 Ole Eistrup v European Parliament
(Case T-223/06 P)
(2006/C 249/35)
Language of the case: Danish
Parties
Appellant: European Parliament (Strasbourg, France) (represented by H. von Hertzen and L. Knudsen, Agents)
Other party to the appeal proceedings: Ole Eistrup
Form of order sought by the appellant
The appellant submits that the Court should:
|
— |
Set aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal; |
|
— |
Itself give a ruling in the case by upholding the appellant's preliminary objection; |
|
— |
Dismiss the action brought by Ole Eistrup; |
|
— |
Give a ruling as to costs in accordance with the relevant rules. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its appeal the European Parliament submits that the European Union Civil Service Tribunal infringed the first subparagraph of Article 43(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance by not dismissing the case, despite the fact that the application did not bear the signature of the applicant's lawyer but rather a facsimile stamp reproducing the lawyer's signature.
The European Parliament also submits that the Civil Service Tribunal set aside the principle of legal certainty by making application of the first subparagraph of Article 43(1) of the Rules of Procedure dependent on whether there was a disproportionate failure to guarantee access to the courts. It is thus impossible to predict whether it will be possible to examine a case on its merits.