1. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Plea relating to the conditions for filing an application before the General Court – Contested order adopted without a hearing of the parties – Admissibility
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 111)
2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Procedural requirements – Failure to submit the signed original of the application before the expiry of the time-limit – Inadmissibility
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(6))
3. Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Action time-barred – Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure – Definition – Excusable error – Definition
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.)
1. In the context of an appeal against an order of the General Court made on the basis of Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, which does not require the parties to be heard before such a decision is adopted, the appellant cannot be criticised for having omitted to raise, in the application, arguments relating to the conditions for its lodging. The purpose of a ground of appeal alleging breach of point 57(b) of the Practice Directions to Parties is therefore not to modify the subject-matter of the proceedings before the General Court and is, accordingly, admissible.
(see para. 37)
2. The failure to submit the signed original of the application is not one of the defects capable of being rectified under Article 44(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. Thus, an application which is not signed by a lawyer is affected by a defect such as to entail the inadmissibility of the action upon the expiry of the procedural time-limits, and cannot be put in order. The strict application of those procedural rules serves the requirements of legal certainty and the necessity of avoiding any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice.
(see paras 42-43)
3. With regard to time-limits for bringing proceedings, the concept of excusable error must be strictly construed and can concern only exceptional circumstances in which, in particular, the conduct of the institution concerned has been, either alone or to a decisive extent, such as to give rise to a pardonable confusion in the mind of a party acting in good faith and exercising all the diligence required of a normally experienced trader.
The concept of unforeseeable circumstances contains an objective element relating to abnormal circumstances unconnected with the trader in question and a subjective element involving the obligation, on his part, to guard against the consequences of the abnormal event by taking appropriate steps without making unreasonable sacrifices. In particular, the trader must pay close attention to the course of the procedure set in motion and, in particular, demonstrate diligence in order to comply with the prescribed time-limits.
The responsibility for preparing, monitoring and checking procedural documents to be lodged at the Registry rests with the lawyer of the party concerned. Accordingly, the fact that the confusion between the original and the copies of the application is attributable to the intervention of a third party, a company instructed by the appellant to make copies, cannot be considered to be exceptional circumstances or abnormal events unconnected to the appellant entitling it to rely on excusable error or unforeseeable circumstances.
(see paras 47-48, 50)