Avis juridique important

61969J0058

European Court reports 1970 Page 00507 Greek special edition Page 00359

Parties

++++

IN CASE 58/69

RAYMOND ELZ, AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, RESIDING AT 24, RUE BELLE-VUE, LUXEMBOURG-HOWALD, REPRESENTED BY PAUL BEGHIN, ADVOCATE AT THE LUXEMBOURG BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF PAUL BEGHIN, 9, AVENUE DE LA GARE, APPLICANT,

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, PIERRE LAMOUREUX, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF ITS LEGAL ADVISER, EMILE REUTER, 4, BOULEVARD ROYAL, DEFENDANT,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR THE PARTIAL ANNULMENT AND THE RECTIFICATION OF THE PERIODIC REPORT OF 31 MAY 1968 CONCERNING THE APPLICANT,

Grounds

ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION

1 THE DEFENDANT MAINTAINS THAT THE APPLICATION, WHICH WAS LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 8 OCTOBER 1969, WAS FILED OUT OF TIME BECAUSE THE PERIOD STARTED TO RUN WITH THE COMMUNICATION TO THE APPLICANT ON 31 MAY 1968 OF THE PERIODIC REPORT OF 22 MAY 1968.

2 THE APPLICANT REPLIES THAT THE PERIOD FOR LODGING THE APPLICATION BEGAN TO RUN ON THE DATE, OF THE JUDGMENT GIVEN BY THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER ) ON 25 FEBRUARY 1969 IN CASE 15/68, AS THAT JUDGMENT CONSTITUTED A FRESH FACTOR WITH REGARD TO HIM.

3 THAT JUDGMENT DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE AN APPLICATION BROUGHT BY THE SAME APPLICANT ON 25 JULY 1968 AGAINST A PERIODIC REPORT OF 15 JANUARY 1968, ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMMISSION HAD REPLACED THAT MEASURE BY AN AMENDED REPORT ON 22 MAY 1968.

4 THAT JUDGMENT MERELY STATED THE SITUATION WHICH EXISTED WHEN THE FIRST APPLICATION WAS LODGED, BY DECLARING THAT THE AMENDED REPORT COULD BE USED AGAINST THE APPLICANT.

5 THEREFORE THE JUDGMENT OF 25 FEBRUARY 1969 CANNOT CONSTITUTE A FACTOR WHICH COULD START RUNNING IN THE APPLICANT' S FAVOUR A NEW PERIOD FOR LODGING AN APPLICATION AGAINST THE REPORT OF 22 MAY 1968.

6 AS THIS REPORT HAD BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT ON 31 MAY 1968, THE PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS AVAILABLE TO HIM UNDER ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS HAD ALREADY EXPIRED BEFORE THIS APPEAL WAS LODGED.

7 THE MEMORANDUM OF 8 JULY 1969 WHEREBY THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION SIMPLY CONFIRMED THE PERIODIC REPORT IN QUESTION FOLLOWING A COMPLAINT BY THE APPLICANT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS CANNOT CONSTITUTE A MEASURE AGAINST WHICH AN APPLICATION CAN BE MADE.

8 THEREFORE THIS APPLICATION MUST BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE.

Decision on costs

9 THE APPLICANT' S APPLICATION HAS BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL.

10 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS.

11 HOWEVER, UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THOSE RULES INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT AGAINST THEM BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES.

Operative part

THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )

HEREBY :

1 . DISMISSES APPLICATION 58/69 AS INADMISSIBLE;

2 . ORDERS THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS.