Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Endorsements
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 47/65
EDITH KALKUHL, AN OFFICIAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, RESIDING AT 5 CITE HOLLESCHBIERG, HESPERAGE, REPRESENTED AND ASSISTED BY FERNAND PROBST OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF HER SAID COUNSEL, 26 AVENUE DE LA LIBERTE,
APPLICANT,
V
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - GENERAL, HANS ROBERT NORD, AND BY JACQUES FAYAUD, ACTING AS AGENTS, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE SECRETARIAT-GENERAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 19A RUE BEAUMONT,
DEFENDANT,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR THE GRANT OF A SPECIFIC STEP ON CLASSIFICATION,
Grounds
P.1013
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION
BY AN APPLICATION OF 8 JULY 1965, THE APPLICANT CONTESTED BEFORE THE COURT THE REFUSAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENT OF 9 APRIL 1965 TO GIVE A FAVOURABLE REPLY TO HER COMPLAINT OF 30 MARCH 1965 RELATING TO THE CLASSIFICATION GIVEN TO HER BY A DECISION OF 15 JUNE 1962, NOTIFIED TO THE APPLICANT ON 20 DECEMBER 1962 .
BY ORDER OF 14 JULY 1965 THE COURT DECIDED TO EXAMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION OF ITS OWN MOTION .
UNDER ARTICLE 91(2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS APPEALS TO THE COURT MUST BE FILED WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION TO THE PERSON CONCERNED OF THE DECISION IN DISPUTE .
THEREFORE A REQUEST OR COMPLAINT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS WHICH IS NOT MADE WITHIN THIS PERIOD CANNOT REVIVE THE TIME-LIMIT .
IN THIS INSTANCE THE DECISION WAS NOTIFIED TO THE APPLICANT ON 20 DECEMBER 1962 AND HER COMPLAINT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED ON 30 MARCH 1965, THUS OCCURRED MORE THAN TWO YEARS LATER, THAT IS, MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 91(2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
THAT COMPLAINT DID NOT THEREFORE REVIVE THE TIME - LIMIT .
NO FACTOR CAN BE FOUND IN THE REPLY GIVEN TO THE COMPLAINT ON 9 APRIL 1965 BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY CAPABLE OF CAUSING THE PERIOD LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 91 TO START TO RUN AFRESH .
IN FACT THAT REPLY MERELY CONFIRMED THE DECISION OF 20 DECEMBER 1962 .
IT COULD NOT, THEREFORE, REOPEN THE PERIOD FOR BRINGING AN APPEAL TO THE COURT .
THE APPLICANT REFERS TO THE NEW FACTOR WHICH, ACCORDING TO HER, IS CONSTITUTED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 7 JULY 1964 IN CASE 70/63, A CASE WHICH ONE OF ITS SERVANTS, MR COLLOTTI, BROUGHT AGAINST ITS ADMINISTRATION .
THE ONLY PERSONS CONCERNED BY THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ANNULLING A MEASURE TAKEN BY AN INSTITUTION ARE THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION AND THOSE PERSONS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE MEASURE WHICH IS ANNULLED . SUCH A JUDGMENT CAN ONLY CONSTITUTE A NEW FACTOR AND CAUSE THE PERIODS FOR BRINGING APPEALS TO START TO RUN AFRESH AS REGARDS THOSE PARTIES AND PERSONS .
AS THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN THIS INSTANCE THE APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE .
Decision on costs
THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN HER APPLICATION .
UNDER ARTICLE 69(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
HOWEVER, UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, IN PROCEEDINGS BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES, INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
Endorsements
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
UPON READING THE PLEADINGS;
UPON HEARING THE REPORT OF THE JUDGE-RAPPORTEUR;
UPON HEARING THE PARTIES;
UPON HEARING THE OPINION OF THE ADVOCATE - GENERAL;
HAVING REGARD TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS, ESPECIALLY ARTICLES 90 AND 91;
HAVING REGARD TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE, ESPECIALLY ARTICLES 69 AND 70;
Operative part
THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES APPLICATION 47/65 AS INADMISSIBLE;
2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE ACTION, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE INCURRED BY THE DEFENDANT INSTITUTION .