Traduction de «Requête ex parte » (Français → Anglais) :

23. Notes that EU accession to the ECHR will provide an additional mechanism for enforcing human rights, namely the possibility of lodging a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights in relation to an act, or a failure to act, by an EU institution or a Member State implementing EU law and falling within the remit of the ECHR; stresses, however, that this does not alter the present system of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union nor that of the European Court of Human Rights, and that the requirement that all domestic judicial remedies should have been exhausted will remain the condition for the admissibility of any application; calls for ...[+++] applications and complaints to be dealt with in a reasonable period of time; encourages the Commission to provide some guidance, in consultation with the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, on what constitutes the appropriate domestic remedy within the Union and on preliminary rulings under EU law; stresses, in this context, that it will be necessary to ensure that Member State courts refer cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union when there is arguably a fundamental rights issue at hand;

23. Notes that EU accession to the ECHR will provide an additional mechanism for enforcing human rights, namely the possibility of lodging a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights in relation to an act, or a failure to act, by an EU institution or a Member State implementing EU law and falling within the remit of the ECHR; stresses, however, that this does not alter the present system of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union nor that of the European Court of Human Rights, and that the requirement that all domestic judicial remedies should have been exhausted will remain the condition for the admissibility of any application; calls for ...[+++] applications and complaints to be dealt with in a reasonable period of time; encourages the Commission to provide some guidance, in consultation with the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, on what constitutes the appropriate domestic remedy within the Union and on preliminary rulings under EU law; stresses, in this context, that it will be necessary to ensure that Member State courts refer cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union when there is arguably a fundamental rights issue at hand;

23. Notes that EU accession to the ECHR will provide an additional mechanism for enforcing human rights, namely the possibility of lodging a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights in relation to an act, or a failure to act, by an EU institution or a Member State implementing EU law and falling within the remit of the ECHR; stresses, however, that this does not alter the present system of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union nor that of the European Court of Human Rights, and that the requirement that all domestic judicial remedies should have been exhausted will remain the condition for the admissibility of any application; calls for ...[+++] applications and complaints to be dealt with in a reasonable period of time; encourages the Commission to provide some guidance, in consultation with the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, on what constitutes the appropriate domestic remedy within the Union and on preliminary rulings under EU law; stresses, in this context, that it will be necessary to ensure that Member State courts refer cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union when there is arguably a fundamental rights issue at hand;

7. Notes that EU accession to the ECHR will provide an additional mechanism for enforcing human rights, namely the possibility of lodging a complaint with the ECtHR in relation to an act, or a failure to act, by an EU institution or a Member State implementing EU law and falling within the remit of the ECHR; stresses, however, that this does not alter the present system of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ), nor that of the European Court of Human Rights, and that the requirement that all domestic judicial remedies should have been exhausted will remain the condition for the admissibility of any application; calls fo ...[+++]r applications and complaints to be dealt with in a reasonable period of time; encourages the Commission to provide some guidance, in consultation with the ECJ and the ECtHR, on what constitutes the appropriate domestic remedy within the Union and on preliminary rulings under EU law; stresses, in this context, that it will be necessary to ensure that Member State courts refer cases to the ECJ when there is arguably a fundamental rights issue at hand;

10 By the order under appeal the Court of First Instance held, first, that the first application did not comply with an essential procedural condition which must be observed if an action is not to be inadmissible, namely the requirement to submit an application bearing the signature of a lawyer authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the EEA Agreement, and, second, that such a breach of procedure could not be cured after expiry of the period prescribed for bringing the action.

21 According to the appellants, the Court of First Instance was under an obligation, first, to draw their attention to this procedural error, relating to the capacity to represent a party, before expiry of the period prescribed for the lodging of the action, and, secondly, to clarify the facts with which the first application was concerned and to order the Commission to produce the relevant documents and records.