- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 January 1978. # Claude Jacquemart v Council of the European Communities and Commission of the European Communities. # Severance grant. # Case 114/77.
ECLI:EU:C:1978:6
61977CO0114
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Avis juridique important
61977O0114
European Court reports 1978 Page 01711
Parties
IN CASE 114/77
Grounds
BY AN APPLICATION OF 22 SEPTEMBER 1977 LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON THE SAME DATE , THE APPLICANT , IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , COMMENCED PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION OF 12 JULY 1977 AND OF COUNCIL REGULATION ( ECSC , EEC , EURATOM ) NO 3177/76 OF 21 DECEMBER 1976.
THE COUNCIL CONTENDS THAT , AS FAR AS IT IS CONCERNED , THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DECLARED INADMISSIBLE WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE .
THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT FIRST OF ALL BY A PERSONAL COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED TO THE COUNCIL AND SUBSEQUENTLY IN HIS APPLICATION DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMISSION ' S DECISION RELATING TO THE CALCULATION OF HIS SEVERANCE GRANT CALLED IN QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF CERTAIN OF THE PROVISIONS OF COUNCIL REGULATION NO 3177/76 DOES NOT CONFER UPON THE COUNCIL THE ATTRIBUTES OF AN APPOINTING AUTHORITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 91 ( 2 ) OF THE SAID STAFF REGULATIONS .
ON THE OTHER HAND , SINCE REGULATION NO 3177/76 IS NEITHER A DECISION ADDRESSED TO THE APPLICANT NOR A DECISION WHICH , ALTHOUGH IN THE FORM OF A REGULATION , IS OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO HIM , THE APPLICATION IS ALSO INADMISSIBLE IN SO FAR AS IT IS BASED ON ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY .
FINALLY , AND IN ANY EVENT , EVEN IF THE LETTER SENT BY THE APPLICANT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL ON 25 FEBRUARY 1977 IN ORDER TO HAVE REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 3177/76 AMENDED OR TO HAVE ARTICLE 12 OF ANNEX VIII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS INTERPRETED BY THE COMMISSION TO HIS SATISFACTION COULD BE REGARDED AS A COMPLAINT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , THE ACTION DIRECTED AGAINST THE REASONED REPLY OF THE COUNCIL OF 15 MARCH 1977 IS INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT IS OUT OF TIME UNDER ARTICLE 91 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
HAVING REGARD TO ARTICLES 69 , 70 AND 91 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE ,
UPON HEARING THE OPINION OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL ,
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER ) HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :