F. whereas, in her statement of 2 December 2011, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay warned that the continued ruthless repression by the Syrian regime of its country's population might drive the country into a civil war, and encouraged the UN Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court;

freedom of choice and out-of-court nature : ADR must be optional and based on respect for the parties' freedom of choice throughout the process, allowing them the possibility of choosing, at any time, to settle their dispute before the courts; at the same time, guarantees must be provided that genuine efforts are being made to achieve successful mediation; it must not under any circumstances constitute an initial compulsory step prior to the initiation of legal proceedings, and the decision stemming from it can be binding only if the parties have been informed to that effect beforehand and expressly agree to it; despite such a decision, it must still be possible for the parties to opt for a cour ...[+++]t hearing;

Nevertheless, the Commission endorses Parliament's amendment concerning the spouses' option of going to this court as a last resort, if it proves impossible to obtain a divorce from the court of habitual residence, but we see this more as an exceptional case.

It is apparent from the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and, in particular, the term ‘represented’ that, in order to bring an action before the Civil Service Tribunal, a party within the meaning of that article must use 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.

8 It is apparent from those provisions, and in particular from the use of the term ‘represented’ in the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, that, in order to bring an action before the Court of First Instance, a party within the meaning of that article must use 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 (order of the Court of Justice in Case C‑174/96 P Lopes v Court of Justice [1996] ECR I‑6401, paragraph 11; order of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 1999 in Case T‑131/99 S ...[+++]haw and Others v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 11).

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.