- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 April 2009. # Lidia Noworyta v European Parliament. # No need to give a decision. # Case F-30/07.
ECLI:EU:F:2009:42
62007FO0030
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
(No need to adjudicate)
Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Noworyta seeks annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 28 April 2006 rejecting the proposal of her hierarchical superior of 20 October 2005 and refusing to grant her the fixed allowance for overtime within the meaning of Article 3 of Annex VI to the Staff Regulations; as an alternative to payment of that allowance, the applicant seeks payment of any other allowance either under Article 56a or 56b of the Staff Regulations.
Held: There is no need to adjudicate in Case F‑30/07 Noworyta v Parliament, which is removed from the register of the Tribunal. Each party is to bear its own costs.
Summary
Procedure – Request complied with after action was brought
(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 75)
The Community judicature is entitled to assess, depending on the circumstances of each individual case, whether the proper administration of justice justifies the rejection on the merits of an action for annulment or, by analogy, the finding that an action has become devoid of purpose and that there is therefore no need to adjudicate on its merits, without ruling beforehand on a plea of inadmissibility raised by the defendant.
That applies where the Tribunal has already, in an earlier case, adjudicated on the merits in favour of the applicant in the present case before it, even though, at the hearing and in reply to a question from the Tribunal in that second case, the parties declared that, although the action in the earlier case was ruled admissible and the Tribunal had adjudicated on its merits, there was no need to adjudicate in the second case.
(see paras 5-8)
See:
C-23/00 P Council v Boehringer [2002] ECR I‑1873, paras 51 and 52; C-233/02 France v Commission [2004] ECR I‑2759, para. 26
T-171/02 Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Commission [2005] ECR II‑2123, para. 155
F-134/06 Bordini v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 56; F-115/07 Balieu-Steinmetz and Noworyta v Parliament [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000