Public policy matters possible to be raised of the EU Courts own motion

La respuesta a esta solicitud está muy retrasada. Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea ya debería haber respondido (detalles). Puedes apelar pidiendo una revisión interna.

Dear Presidents of EU Court of Justice, EU General Court and EU Civil Service Tribunal,

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting documents which contain the following information:

1. Internal rules of the EU Courts or similar documents which contains the list of situations where a matter of public policy can be raised of the Court`s own motion. In order to allow you to understand my request I exemplify with the following court cases: T-160/08P (p. 24, 57); T-80/09P (p. 130, 149); F-112/10 (p. 116) and C-91/76P (p. 10 and 11).

Some of these cases contains pleas which were raised by EU courts on its own motion and some of them shows that similar pleas were not raised by EU court on its own motion. As this is a matter of public policy and legal certainty I request access to the list of such situations. The cases mentioned above reveals that such a list exist. Some of the cases says that a certain plea is not among the pleas which the court may raise on its own motion, without revealing why. I request access to relevant information.

2. Internal rules related to assessment of the evidences provided to the case file by the parties following request of the EU courts. Particularly I request relevant information and access to related documents showing if at the EU Courts there is a mechanism in place to identify the potential fake/forged evidences or backdated, pre dated and not dated documents provided as authentic documents? (this request is within the EU concepts related to protection of the rights of the defense, the principle of legal certainty and the proper conduct of procedure.

3. The rules of EU Courts related to attendance of hearings by persons not involved in the case (I request the relevant forms to be filled, procedure to be followed, other similar documents). Who from the public is allowed to attend hearings held by any of the 3 EU courts. Is there a special procedure for Journalists?

This website provide possibility to send such requests only to EU Court of Justice. If the requests above are not within your competence, please forward it to the competent EU court, which held the requested documents and information. Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Welz

Dear European Court of Justice,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of European Court of Justice's handling of my FOI request 'Public policy matters possible to be raised of the EU Courts own motion'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.asktheeu.org/request/public_p...

Yours faithfully,

Martin Welz

Registry ECJ, Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea

Dear Mr Welz,

Your request for information adressed to the Civil Service Tribunal, the General Court and the Court of Justice has been passed to the Registry of the ECJ for reply.

As your first two requests concern documents which do not actually exist, it will not be possible for the Registry to provide the information you seek.

In answer to your third question, apart from in camera hearings, which are very infrequent, all Court hearings are public and any member of the public is free to attend. In the case of a group of persons wishing to attend it is advisable to contact the relevant service of the Court to arrange a visit - for further information please go to the Court's website and click on "The Institution" and then on "Visiting the Court". For information concerning access and facilities for journalists please click on the following link : http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_705...

As regards your fourth question, the rules concerning the production of evidence are to be found in the Rules of Procedure of the three Courts - these may be consulted on our website.

I hope that this information is of help to you.

Yours sincerely,

T. Millett,
Deputy Registrar,
Registry of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Dear Mr Millet,

Thank you for your reply.
Would be possible to make available on the CURIA website the rules for implementing the Code of Conduct for Judges after they cease there employment with EU Courts? In the Curia website there is only a general code. Which are the possibilities for complaining formally about the conduct of a judge?

Yours sincerely,

Martin Welz

Registry ECJ, Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea

Dear Mr Welz,

In answer to your enquiry of 5 June 2013, I would refer you to article 6 of the Code of Conduct which sets out the undertakings of Members after ceasing to hold office.

A formal complaint about the conduct of a judge could be addressed to the Registry of the Court, and it would be for the Court of Justice to take a decision in accordance with article 7 of the Code of Conduct.

Yours sincerely,

Timothy Millett,
Deputy Registrar,
Registry of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Dear Registry ECJ,

Dear Mr Millett,

Thank you very much indeed for your reply. I provide you further details in order to allow you to identify precisely the information I request.

I would like to have access to a document with relevance to Professional Conduct of Judges. The code of conduct available in Curia website is too general and do not offer the necessary information as what is framed within inadequate, or improper, or unprofessional conduct of a judge.

There is no form to be filled or a guidelines to help the potential complainant to understand if his complaint is indeed within the provisions of law and what he raises will not trigger adverse
consequences due to his non-knowledge and institution`s
non-transparency as to the applicable legislation.

I would like to access information or a document which contains activities liable to compromise the dignity of judges office, public confidence in the judicial system, situations of conflicts of interest or anything else similar.

For clarification I provide you this link
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/guid...
this one
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=10464...
and this one
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/profes...

Yours sincerely,

Martin Welz

Dear European Court of Justice,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of European Court of Justice's handling of my FOI request 'Public policy matters possible to be raised of the EU Courts own motion'.

I request an internal review on the tacit rejection by CJ EU.
The initial text dated 8 June 2013 is here http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/publi...

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.asktheeu.org/request/public_p...

Yours faithfully,

Martin Welz

Registry ECJ, Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea

Dear Mr Welz,

I acknowledge receipt of your e-mail of 2 July which refers to an e-mail allegedly sent by you on 8 June 2013. Unfortunately that e-mail was never received by me, therefore I was not able to reply to it.

In response to your request I must inform you that the Code of Conduct published on the Court's website is the only document regulating the professional conduct of the Members of the European Court of Justice. A more detailed document, such as you describe, does not exist and, consequently, it is impossible to comply with your request.

Yours sincerely,

Timothy Millett,
Deputy Registrar,
European Court of Justice

Dear Mr Timothy Millett,

A link in the "Access Info Europe" website http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/annua... led me to Annual Report of EU Courts:

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/...

This is a request under Regulation 1049/2001 to access documents referring to the part of Annual Report drafted by Mr Sean Van Raepenbusch, President of the Civil Service Tribunal.

Taking view that the Judgment in case F-58/10 was based on facts which now appear to be not true (see link above - 2 contradictory statements in different temporal points) I would like to access the submissions of the defendant related to the relevant part (i.e. the contract in question, "a contract capable of being renewed repeatedly in the future").

I noticed in the website of Access Info Europe that this contract, which constituted the main reason of CST annulment, was requested to be accessed and the defendant refused to disclose it.

Also I would appreciate access to relevant information about resistance/survival of a Judgment if after its delivery the facts which triggered the annulment of the defendant`s decision appears to be opposite as the ones taken into consideration for the Judgment.

I ask for such information also in connection to this quote from Annual Report:

"6. Plurality of grounds
In its judgment of 28 March 2012 in Case F-36/11 BD v Commission, the Tribunal recalled that where
a contested decision is based on several grounds, the fact that one of those grounds is erroneous
cannot result in the annulment of that decision if the other grounds provide justification which is
sufficient in itself."

Yours sincerely,

Martin Welz

Dear European Court of Justice,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of European Court of Justice's handling of my FOI request 'Public policy matters possible to be raised of the EU Courts own motion'.

My Request was not processed and there was no reply in due time. I would like to request an internal review.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/publi...

Yours faithfully,

Martin Welz

Fretwell Christopher, Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea

Dear Mr Welz,

 

In response to your request, may I first apologise for the delay in
replying. Unfortunately I only received your request myself yesterday.

 

Before dealing with your request I would like to point out that Regulation
1049/2001 does not apply to the Court of Justice. The Court of Justice has
its own decision, available on its website
([1]http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/P_92908/) which regulates access to
documents held by the Court in the exercise of its administrative
functions.

 

This brings me to the first part of your request, that relating to the
defendant’s submissions in Case F-58/10.

 

The right of access to documents held by the Court, as provided for by
Art.15(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, only
applies to administrative documents. Your request, pertaining as it does
to documents concerning a case before the Civil Service Tribunal,
concerns, not administrative documents, but judicial documents and
therefore does not fall under this provision.  

 

As you are no doubt aware, the judgment in this case is available on the
Court's website (
[2]http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/do...).

 

Under the terms of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal,
in particular Article 20(5):

 

"No third party, private or public, may have access to the case-file or to
the

procedural documents without the express authorisation of the President,
after the parties

have been heard. That authorisation may be granted only upon written
request

accompanied by a detailed explanation of the third party’s legitimate
interest in inspecting

the file."

 

As a general rule therefore, no third party may have access to the
case-file unless authorised by the President of the Civil Service
Tribunal. That being so, I have forwarded your request to that Tribunal
who will examine your request and take a decision in due course.

 

As regards your second request, as to “survival/resistance” of a case,
which is essentially a request for information rather than for access to a
document, I would refer you to Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Civil Service Tribunal which concerns the possibility for revision of
the decisions of that Tribunal:

 

" Article 119

Revision

1. In accordance with Article 44 of the Statute, an application for
revision of a

decision of the Tribunal may be made only on discovery of a fact which is
of such a nature

as to be a decisive factor and which, before the decision was delivered or
adopted, was

unknown to the Tribunal and to the party claiming the revision.

 

Without prejudice to the period of 10 years prescribed in the third
paragraph of Article 44

of the Statute, an application for revision shall be made within three
months of the date on

which the facts on which the application is based came to the applicant’s
knowledge.

 

2. Articles 34 and 35 shall apply to an application for revision. In
addition such an

application shall:

 

(a) specify the decision contested;

(b) indicate the points on which the decision is contested;

(c) set out the facts on which the application is based;

(d) indicate the nature of the evidence to show that there are facts
justifying revision,

and that the time-limits laid down in paragraph 1 of this article have
been observed.

 

The application must be made against all the parties to the case in which
the contested

decision was given.

 

The application for revision shall be assigned to the formation of the
court which gave the

contested decision.

 

3. The Tribunal shall give its decision by way of judgment on the
admissibility of the

application in the light of the parties’ written observations.

 

If the Tribunal finds the application admissible, the remainder of the
procedure shall be

oral, unless the Tribunal otherwise decides. It shall give its decision by
way of judgment.

The original of the revising judgment shall be annexed to the original of
the decision

revised. A note of the revising judgment shall be made in the margin of
the original of the

decision revised.

 

4. Where an appeal before the General Court and an application for
revision before the

Tribunal concern the same decision of the Tribunal, the Tribunal may,
after hearing the

parties, stay the proceedings until the General Court has delivered its
judgment."

 

As of this moment, no such application has been made in Case F-58/10.

 

Finally, as regards your request for information concerning plurality of
grounds and Case F-36/11, this particular doctrine forms part of the
Court’s settled case law and dates back to the judgment of the Court of
Justice in Case 119/86
([3]http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf...),
where it is stated in paragraph 51.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Christopher Fretwell

English Section

Press and Information Unit

Court of Justice of the European Union

Tel: +352 4303 3355

Follow us on Twitter: @EUCourtPress

 

 

 

mostrar partes citadas

Dear Mr Fretwell Christopher,

Thank you for your reply.

On the paragraph inserted below* I would like to ask which are the concrete modalities to exercise that right quoted by you.

I am interested to know how that right works for ordinary persons from public with no particular interest in the case F-58/10 but who pay taxes, fees and other due amounts used for paying European institutions and its employees to deliver them a good quality services.

As you can see, apparently there are room for agents delegated to Court, acting on behalf of institutions, to provide misleading information and to confuse the court. It is somehow obvious that those misleading information provided to Court by the agency, had generated a jurisprudence on issues related to impartiality. The court will probably quote and rely on its findings in F-58/10, and will use them for its further cases.

I doubt that the equilibrium of Judgment F-58/10 resist if one took out one of the two pillars which represents the foundation of that Judgment: 1. impartiality and 2. lack of anonymity. The misleading information on the repetitive renewal of the contract shakes one of the pillar (i.e. impartiality).

* The paragraph in question is :

"No third party, private or public, may have access to the case-file or to the procedural documents without the express authorisation of the President, after the parties have been heard. That authorisation may be granted only upon written request accompanied by a detailed explanation of the third party’s legitimate
interest in inspecting the file."

Are there means for the court to act on its own motion to correct the wrong information provided by the agency?

If any of the two parties will not act by asking a corrigenda, will the Judgment F-58/10 stay in its current form?

Yours sincerely,

Martin Welz

Fretwell Christopher, Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea

Dear Mr Welz,

In order to avail oneself of that right then a request containing a detailed explanation as to why one has a legitimate interest in accessing the file needs to be made in writing to the Civil Service Tribunal. Such a request can be sent to the Civil Service Tribunal at the address (postal or email) that can be found on our website: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/T5_5233/

In your particular case, as I indicated in my earlier email, I have already forwarded your request to the Civil Service Tribunal, who will deal with it under Article 20(5) in due course.

As regards your final questions, the answers are simply that there is no provision which allows the Court to act of its own motion to revise a judgment, and therefore, if no review request is received by the Tribunal, the judgment will remain as it is.

Regards,

Christopher Fretwell
English Section
Press and Information Unit
Court of Justice of the European Union
Tel: +352 4303 3355
Follow us on Twitter: @EUCourtPress

 

mostrar partes citadas

Tfp Greffe, Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea

1 Adjuntos

Dear Sir,

 

Please find enclosed our answer to your request of 07/08/2013.

 

Kind regards.

 

Registry of the European Union

Civil Service Tribunal

Tel.: 00352 4303 1

Fax: 00352 4303 4453

e-mail: [1][email address]

 

Before printing this message, thank you for considering the environment

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]