DRAFT RULES OF PROCEDURE—CIVIL SERVICE
TRIBUNAL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (17010/06)
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Geoff
Honn MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
The draft Rules of Procedure were considered
by Sub-Committee E at its meeting on 7 March. The Committee noted
that there are a number of matters on which the Government are
seeking clarification. As you may recall from when the Committee
examined the Decision establishing the Tribunal, the issue of
costs and also of how the possibilities of an amicable settlement
of the dispute would be advanced during the litigation are also
matters of concern to the Committee. We would therefore be grateful
if you would, as the discussions proceed in the Council Working
Group, pass on to the Committee the responses of the Tribunal
and other information you may receive on these and the other points
listed in your Explanatory Memorandum.
The general approach of the Committee to the
proposed Rules of the Tribunal, and to those of the CFI, is that
the Court should be given a measure of discretion. The autonomy
of the Community Courts in relation to their Rules is a matter
which the Committee will address in its forthcoming Report on
the CBI proposal for an EU Competition Court.
The Committee decided to retain the Draft Rules
under scrutiny.
8 March 2007
Letter from Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP to the
Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 8 March 2007 regarding
the draft Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal of
the European Union (document 17010/06).
You raised concerns around the issue of awarding
costs by the Tribunal and the procedure for amicable settlements.
These points were discussed at the last meetings of the Working
Group on 19 February and 19 March.
The UK expressed concerns that the current wording
of Articles 59(3) and 86 of the draft Rules of Procedure would
discourage individual applicants with genuine complaints from
bringing claims before the Tribunal. Article 59(3) gives the Tribunal
power to require litigants to lodge a sum to cover witnesses costs.
The Tribunal and the Presidency agreed that this provision should
be used only exceptionally. Article 86 sets out the general rule
on the allocation of costs and is based on Article 7(5) of the
Annex to the Statute of the Court of Justice which requires that
generally, the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the
costs. The Working Group decided not to amend this provision in
order to maintain continuity in with the Statute of the Court
of Justice. However, the Tribunal will exercise its discretion
to allocate costs according to the principle of "equity"
set out in Article 86(2).
We also asked the Tribunal whether it had considered
creating a power to set out the terms of a settlement agreed out
of court in minutes or a court order. The Tribunal has such a
power for settlements agreed before the Tribunal under Article
69(1). The Tribunal responded that they had considered this but
concluded that out of court settlements were not sufficiently
within their control to be formalised by a Tribunal order. They
believed it was sufficient that Article 69(2) will require the
parties to give their reasons for withdrawing a case when it is
settled. The Working group was content with this approach.
The Working Group was content that the Reporting
Judge should have a role in negotiating amicable settlement. However,
the Tribunal has amended Article 70 to ensure that no information
or material obtained during an unsuccessful amicable settlement
process can be relied on during the subsequent litigation procedure.
In relation to other areas of concern referred
to in the Explanatory Memorandum, the Tribunal has amended its
draft Rules and the parties' views will now be sought before a
case is referred to single chamber. The Working Group decided
it was content with the rules on intervention and decided that
4 weeks was adequate time for an application to intervene to be
made. The Tribunal also explained the distinction between reasoned
and non-reasoned orders in its rules. Non-reasoned orders are
used in straightforward situations, for example, to accept an
institution's automatic right to intervene. Reasoned orders are
used in more complex situations, for example concerning admissibility
or suspension of a case which raises similar issues to a case
pending in the CFI.
In addition, in response to a request from the
Commission, the Tribunal has added a preliminary admissibility
procedure (Article 77a) which corresponds to the admissibility
procedure in Article 114 of the CFI Rules. The Tribunal has also
added a provision (Article 20(5)) concerning the procedure for
third party access to the case file, which will be supplemented
by Instructions to the Registrar and corresponds to the procedures
in the CFI.
We agree with the Committee that, consistent
with the Rules of Procedure of the other European Courts, the
Tribunal should be given a measure of discretion, and are satisfied
that the final version of the RoP will achieve this.
The Presidency will circulate a final copy of
the letter to be put to COREPER in April, for adoption as an A
point at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 19 April. I hope
that this information will allow the Committee to complete its
scrutiny of this document before the JHA meeting.
29 March 2007
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Geoff
Hoon MP
Thank you for your letter of 29 March which
was considered at its meeting on 18 April. The Committee was grateful
for the further information provided and decided to clear the
draft Rules from scrutiny.
19 April 2007
| 
