- 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 14 October 1981. # Helmut Knoeppel v Commission and Council of the European Communities. # Case 618/79 A.
ECLI:EU:C:1981:229
61979CO0618
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
61979O0618
European Court reports 1981 Page 02387
Parties
IN CASE 618/79 A
HELMUT KNOEPPEL , RESIDING AT 16 VIA MATTEOTTI , CADREZATTE ( VARESE ), ITALY , REPRESENTED BY B . POTTHAST AND H.-J . RUBER , OF THE COLOGNE BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF V . BIEL , 18A , RUE DES GLACIS ,
APPLICANT ,
1 . COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY J . PIPKORN , A MEMBER OF ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT , ACTING AS AGENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF O . MONTALTO , JEAN MONNET BUILDING , KIRCHBERG ,
2.COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER , J . CARBERY , ACTING AS AGENT , ASSISTED BY TITO GALLAS , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF D . FONTEIN , DIRECTOR OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK , KIRCHBERG ,
DEFENDANTS ,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION CHALLENGING THE TERMS FOR REPAYMENT OF BUILDING LOANS GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION , AS AMENDED BY THE LATTER AS FROM APRIL 1979 ON THE BASIS OF COUNCIL REGULATIONS NO 3085/78 AND NO 3086/78 OF 21 DECEMBER 1978 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 369 , PP . 6 AND 8 ),
Grounds
THE COUNCIL IS NEITHER THE APPLICANT ' S APPOINTING AUTHORITY NOR A PARTY TO THE LOAN CONTRACT , WHICH REFERS SOLELY TO THE COMMISSION AND THE APPLICANT . THE COUNCIL CANNOT THEREFORE BE PARTY TO THIS ACTION , A VIEW WHICH IS SHARED BY THE APPLICANT HIMSELF . THE APPLICANT HAS NOT ASKED TO DISCONTINUE THE ACTION .
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER ) HOLDS THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO OPEN THE ORAL PROCEDURE .
THE APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE IN SO FAR AS IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE COUNCIL AND MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
Decision on costs
COSTS
ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
HOWEVER , ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE STATES THAT IN ACTIONS BROUGHT BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES THE INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )
HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :
1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE IN SO FAR AS IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE COUNCIL .
2.THE APPLICANT AND THE COUNCIL SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .