Traduction de «Inadmissible in a court law » (Anglais → Français) :

73. Welcomes the statement made in the Supervisory Committee’s 2012 Activity Report (paragraph 53) that all actions for annulment of OLAF’s decisions were rejected as inadmissible by the Court of Justice, while the Ombudsman did not find any instance of maladministration; further points out that the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) found that OLAF generally complied with the data protection rules, with the exception of one case where the EDPS considered that OLAF violated the right to protection of personal data by unnecess ...[+++]arily disclosing the identity of a whistleblower to his institution;

1. Neither Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance nor Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, also applicable to the Court of First Instance pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, nor any other provision of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance and of the Statute of the Court of Justice, place any obligation on the Court of First Instance to advise the party lodging an action that his application is inadmissible when it has not been signed by a lawyer authorised to appear before the ...[+++]Community courts.

In order to bring an action before the Court of First Instance, a party within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which applies to proceedings before the Court of First Instance by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, must use (if the action is not to be inadmissible) the services of a third person authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of a State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

If, however, the Court of Justice finds that the decision of the Court of First Instance affects the unity or consistency of Community law, the Court of Justice will, in the cases provided for in Article 225(2) of the EC Treaty, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance, which will be bound by the points of law decided by the Court of Justice (first subparagraph of point 1 of paragraph 2 of Article 62c).

Until a few years ago, the relationship between Community law, on the one hand, and national constitutional law, on the other, seemed largely to have been clarified: although the Community Treaties contain no explicit provisions governing the question of hierarchy, the European Court of Justice had consistently upheld, since its 1964 and 1970 judgments in the cases of Costa v. ENEL and Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, the absolute supremacy of both primary and secondary Community law over all provisions of national law - including constitutional law and the fundamental rights guaranteed thereby. While the Member States' national constitutional courts initially ...[+++] concurred with this legal viewpoint to a very large extent, recent years have seen the development of resistance, which has been spearheaded by the decidedly nationally-minded judgments, which are only partially supportive of integration, issued by the German Federal Constitutional Court and the Danish Supreme Court.

if the appeal is declared manifestly inadmissible on the sole ground that it is not directed against a final decision of the General Court or against a decision disposing of the substantive issues in part only or disposing of a procedural issue concerning a plea of lack of competence or inadmissibility within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute.