Geen rectificeerbare onregelmatigheid
Gerecht EU 28 november 2011, zaak T-307/11 (Noscira SA tegen OHIM/Agouron Pharmaceuticals)
Procesrecht. Gemeenschapsmerk XENTRIOR. Periode waarbinnen het originele beroepsschrift moet worden ingediend is overschreden. Dit is 10 dagen na ontvangst door Registry van een kopie van de aanvraag per fax of email. In dit geval betreft het geen rectificeerbare onregelmatigheid, omdat het gaat om het niet-tijdig indienen van originele beroepsdocumenten getekend door een voldoende geautoriseerde advocaat. Beroep wordt als kennelijk niet-ontvankelijk afgedaan.
14. In the present case, however, the versions of the application and covering letter received at the Registry of the General Court on 15 June 2011 (see paragraph 3 above) were scanned copies of the originals of those two documents to which were appended only the scanned signatures of the applicant’s lawyer. In addition, annexed to its letter of 31 July 2011 (see paragraph 4 above), the applicant communicated only page 18 of the original application bearing its lawyer’s hand-written signature.
15. It must therefore be stated that the signed original of the application was not lodged at the Registry within the 10-day period following receipt by the Registry of the copy of that application by fax and by e-mail. In those circumstances, however, in accordance with Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure, only the date of lodgment of the signed original of the application can be taken into consideration for the purposes of compliance with the time-limit for bringing an action (order of 28 April 2008 in Case T-358/07 PubliCare Marketing Communications v OHIM (Publicare), not published in the ECR, paragraph 13). Accordingly, it must be concluded that the application was not lodged before the expiry of the period within which the action had to be brought.
16. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that the failure to submit the original application, signed by a duly authorised lawyer, is not among the formal irregularities that are capable of being rectified under the second paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 44(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. That requirement must be regarded as an essential procedural rule and be applied strictly, with the result that failure to comply with it leads to the inadmissibility of the action once the periods for taking steps in the proceedings have expired (see, to that effect, Case C-426/10 P Bell & Ross v OHIM [2011] ECR I-0000, paragraph 42, and Case T-223/06 P Parliament v Eistrup [2007] ECR II-1581, paragraphs 48 and 51).
