- 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 31 January 1985. # Dieter Strack v European Parliament. # Official - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court. # Case 259/84 R.
ECLI:EU:C:1985:51
61984CO0259
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
61984O0259
European Court reports 1985 Page 00453
Parties
IN CASES 259/84 AND 259/84 R
DIETER STRACK ,
APPLICANT ,
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ,
DEFENDANT ,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION DATED 21 SEPTEMBER 1984 TAKEN BY THE SELECTION BOARD IN COMPETITION NO PE/27/A ,
Grounds
2 . MR STRACK , AN OFFICIAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS , SUBMITTED HIS CANDIDATURE FOR COMPETITION NO PE/27/A , ORGANIZED BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT . HE WAS ADMITTED TO THE WRITTEN TEST , BUT THE INVITATION TO TAKE PART IN THAT TEST ARRIVED AT MR STRACK ' S PLACE OF RESIDENCE WHILE HE WAS ON HOLIDAY . HE DID NOT BECOME AWARE OF IT IN TIME AND WAS THEREFORE UNABLE TO TAKE PART IN THE TEST .
3 . MR STRACK THEREFORE ASKED THE SELECTION BOARD FOR THE COMPETITION TO FIX A NEW DATE ON WHICH HE COULD TAKE THE WRITTEN TEST . BY A DECISION OF 21 SEPTEMBER 1984 , THE SELECTION BOARD REFUSED TO DO SO .
5 . IN SUPPORT OF HIS APPLICATION , MR STRACK CONTENDS THAT THE INVITATION WAS SENT TO HIM AT A DATE TOO CLOSE TO THAT OF THE COMPETITION . THE NOTICE WHICH HE RECEIVED WAS THUS UNREASONABLY SHORT AND CONTRARY TO THE ESTABLISHED PRACTICE OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS .
6 . UNDER ARTICLE 92 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , WHERE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF AN APPLICATION , IT MAY BY REASONED ORDER DECLARE THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE . IN THIS CASE , ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF ADMISSIBILITY FOR AN ACTION BROUGHT UNDER ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IS LACKING . ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS CLEARLY STATES THAT AN APPEAL WILL LIE UNDER THAT PROVISION ONLY IF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAS PREVIOUSLY HAD A COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO IT AND THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY REJECTED . IN THE PRESENT CASE , ALTHOUGH A COMPLAINT WAS CERTAINLY SUBMITTED , THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT WITHOUT WAITING FOR A DECISION TO BE GIVEN ON THAT COMPLAINT .
7 . CONSEQUENTLY , IT MUST BE HELD , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND ARTICLE 92 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THAT THE ACTION HAS BEEN BROUGHT WITHOUT OBTAINING A DECISION ON THE COMPLAINT AND THAT IT IS FOR THAT REASON INADMISSIBLE ; THE APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES BROUGHT ON 28 JANUARY 1985 IS THEREFORE ALSO INADMISSIBLE .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
HAVING HEARD THE VIEWS OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL ,
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )
HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :
2 . THE APPLICANT IS ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .