| | CFIR-76a (Rules of Procedure)Expedited Procedures    
| CFI (Rules of Procedure) | Article 76a | 1. The Court of First Instance may, on application by the applicant or the defendant, after hearing the other parties and the Advocate General, decide, having regard to the particular urgency and the circumstances of the case, to adjudicate under an expedited procedure.
An application for a case to be decided under an expedited procedure shall be made by a separate document lodged at the same time as the application initiating the proceedings or the defence. That application may state that certain pleas in law or arguments or certain passages of the application initiating the proceedings or the defence are raised only in the event that the case is not decided under an expedited procedure, in particular by enclosing with the application an abbreviated version of the application initiating the proceedings and a list of the annexes which are to be taken into consideration only if the case is decided under an expedited procedure
By way of derogation from Article 55, cases on which the Court of First Instance has decided to adjudicate under an expedited procedure shall be given priority.
2. By way of derogation from Article 46(1), where the applicant has requested, in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, that the case should be decided under an expedited procedure, the period prescribed for the lodging of the defence shall be one month. If the Court of First Instance decides not to allow the request, the defendant shall be granted an additional period of one month in order to lodge or, as the case may be, supplement the defence. The time-limits laid down in this subparagraph may be extended pursuant to Article 46(3).
Under the expedited procedure, the pleadings referred to in Articles 47(1) and 116(4) and (5) may be lodged only if the Court of First Instance, by way of measures of organisation of procedure adopted in accordance with Article 64, so allows.
3. Without prejudice to Article 48, the parties may supplement their arguments and offer further evidence in the course of the oral procedure. They must, however, give reasons for the delay in offering such further evidence.
4. The decision of the Court of First Instance to adjudicate under an expedited procedure may prescribe conditions as to the volume and presentation of the pleadings of the parties; the subsequent conduct of the proceedings or as to the pleas in law and arguments on which the Court of First Instance will be called upon to decide.
If one of the parties does not comply with any one of those conditions, the decision to adjudicate under an expedited procedure may be revoked. The proceedings shall then continue in accordance with the ordinary procedure. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | T-376/05
TEA-CEGOS | CFIR-76a | 29-36 | 29. By an application lodged with the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 20 October 2005, GHK Consulting brought the action in Case T383/05, requesting that the case be decided under an expedited procedure pursuant to Article 76a of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. On 7 November 2005 the Commission stated that it agreed to that request.
30. By separate document registered at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 20 October 2005, GHK Consulting submitted an application for interim measures, requesting suspension of operation of the decision in that case and of all subsequent decisions with respect to other tenderers and an order of interim measures to suspend the effects of those decisions. By letter lodged with the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 16 December 2005, GHK Consulting informed the Court pursuant to Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure that it was withdrawing its application for interim measures. By order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 January 2006, the application for interim measures submitted by GHK Consulting was removed from the register of the Court of First Instance, costs being reserved.
31. By letter lodged with the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 20 October 2005, GHK Consulting submitted a request for Cases T376/05 and T383/05 to be joined. The Commission and TEA-CEGOS and STG stated on 28 October 2005 and 8 November 2005 respectively that they had no objection to the cases being joined.
32. By letter lodged with the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 31 October 2005, GHK Consulting made a request for the language of the case to be changed to French, whilst reserving the right to use English where necessary in the written and oral procedure. On 7 November 2005 the Commission stated that it had no objection to the proposed change of language.
33. By letter lodged with the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 3 November 2005, TEA-CEGOS, STG and GHK Consulting requested that they be given the opportunity to put before the Court, in the main proceedings, the documents requested by the Present of the Court of First Instance at the interim measures hearing. On 4 November 2005 the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance granted that request, on condition that the documents were sent to the Registry of the Court of First Instance in English by 1 December 2005 at the latest.
34. On 8 November 2005 the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance decided to grant the application for an expedited procedure in Case T383/05 and to change the language of the case, as requested by GHK Consulting.
35. By order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 10 November 2005, Cases T376/05 and T383/05 were joined for the purposes of the written procedure, the oral procedure and the judgment.
36. By letter lodged wi th the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 30 November 2005, the Commission requested that Case T-376/05 be decided under an expedited procedure pursuant to Article 76a of the Rules of Procedure. On 1 December 2005 TEA-CEGOS and STG agreed to that request. On 6 December 2005 the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance decided to grant the application for an expedited procedure in Case T-376/05. |
|
|
