10 October 2017 (*1)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure — Essential procedural requirements — Representation by a lawyer — Manifest inadmissibility)

In Case C‑405/17 P,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 4 July 2017,

Krassimira Georgieva Mladenova,

residing in Troyan (Bulgaria),

applicant,

the other party to the proceedings being:

European Parliament,

defendant at first instance,

composed of E. Levits, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), and M. Berger, Judges,

Advocate General: E. Sharpston,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to give a decision by reasoned order, pursuant to Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,

makes the following

1By her appeal, Ms Krassimira Georgieva Mladenova asks the Court of Justice to set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 24 April 2017, Mladenova v Parliament (T‑814/16, not published, EU:T:2017:302) (‘the order under appeal’), by which that court declared her action inadmissible.

2Ms Mladenova brought an action by application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 18 November 2016. According to the order under appeal, that action claimed that the Court should order the European Parliament to implement a decree purported to have been adopted by Mr Javier Solana, former High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union, nominating Ms Mladenova as ambassador of the Republic of Bulgaria to the Federal Republic of Germany.

3As Ms Mladenova had brought that action herself on the basis of her signature alone, the General Court applied Article 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.

4Thus, having recalled, in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the order under appeal, the settled case-law relating to Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the General Court, in paragraph 8 of the order under appeal, dismissed that action as being manifestly inadmissible.

5Under Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where an appeal is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, the Court may at any time, acting on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate-General, dismiss that appeal in whole or in part by reasoned order, without opening the oral procedure.

6In the present case, the Court considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the case-file and decides, pursuant to Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure, to give a decision by reasoned order.

7The appeal was lodged by Ms Mladenova on the basis of her signature alone.

8Under the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union:

‘[Parties other than the Member States, the institutions of the Union, the States, other than the Member States, which are parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3), and the EFTA Surveillance Authority,] must be represented by a lawyer.

Only a lawyer authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area may represent or assist a party before the Court.’

9The first paragraph of Article 21 of that Statute provides:

‘A case shall be brought before the Court of Justice by a written application addressed to the Registrar. 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 Under Article 57(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, ‘the original of every procedural document must bear the handwritten signature of the party’s agent or lawyer ...’.

11 Article 119(1) and (3) of those Rules of Procedure, applicable to the appeal under Article 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 Member State or of another State which is a party to the [Agreement on the European Economic Area].’

12 According to the settled case-law of the Court, it is unambiguously apparent from the third paragraph of Article 19 and the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and from Article 57(1) and Article 119(1) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court 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 Court. 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 Ms Mladenova argues that she is a lawyer and, consequently, may represent herself.

14 In that regard, the Court 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 European Union, set out in Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which derives from the legal traditions common to the Member States. 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 Court has held that the expression ‘other parties must be represented by a lawyer’ in the third paragraph of Article 19 of its Statute means that a party and his counsel cannot be one and the same person (see order of 6 June 2013, Faet Oltra 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 Court, 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 Court (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 Ms Mladenova’s appeal manifestly inadmissible and to remove the case from the register of the Court.

On those grounds, the Court (Tenth Chamber) hereby orders:

Luxembourg, 10 October 2017.

Registrar

President of the Tenth Chamber

* Language of the case: English.