Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Endorsements
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 10/67
JOHANNES COENRAAD MOULIJN, AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED AND ASSISTED BY F . SALOMONSON, ADVOCATE OF THE DORDRECHT BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF JONKHEER T.C.H.M.G . VAN RIJCKEVORSEL, ROODT-SUR-SYRE,
APPLICANT,
V
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, L . DE LA FONTAINE, ASSISTED BY J . BOURGEOIS, A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF H . MANZANARES, SECRETARY OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, 2 PLACE DE METZ,
DEFENDANT,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 2(4 ) OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY AND OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY,
Grounds
P.149
THE DEFENDANT HAS RAISED THE OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPLICATION WAS FILED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT .
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 2(4 ) OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EEC WAS REFUSED BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF ADMINISTRATION, THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN THIS MATTER, BY A DECISION OF 4 FEBRUARY 1966 AS SET OUT IN NOTES DATED 1 APRIL 1966 AND 28 JUNE 1966 .
THE PRESENT APPLICATION IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE IMPLIED DECISION OF REFUSAL TO BE INFERRED FROM THE SILENCE OF THE COMMISSION AFTER RECEIVING THE APPLICANT'S COMPLAINT OF 11 NOVEMBER 1966 WHEREBY HE REPEATED HIS REQUEST . THEREFORE THIS IMPLIED REFUSAL AMOUNTS TO A CONFIRMATION OF THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR - GENERAL OF ADMINISTRATION .
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 91(2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS APPEALS SHALL BE FILED WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION OF THE DECISION TO THE PERSON CONCERNED .
ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT A COMPLAINT UNDER ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS MAY BE SUBMITTED AT ANY TIME, IT CAN ONLY EXTEND THE PERIOD ALLOWED UNDER ARTICLE 91(2 ) IF LODGED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THAT PERIOD .
IN THIS CASE THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS WAS MADE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED FOR APPEAL TO THE COURT AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF ADMINISTRATION OF 4 FEBRUARY 1966, WHICH IS THE ORIGIN OF THIS DISPUTE AND WHICH ALL THE SUBSEQUENT MEASURES HAVE MERELY CONFIRMED .
THE PRESENT APPLICATION IS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE AS BEING OUT OF TIME .
Decision on costs
THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN HIS APPLICATION .
UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 69(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
HOWEVER, UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 70 OF THE SAID RULES OF PROCEDURE, IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY OFFICIALS OR OTHER SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES THE 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 OPINION OF THE ADVOCATE - GENERAL;
HAVING REGARD TO THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY;
HAVING REGARD TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY ARTICLES 90 AND 91;
HAVING REGARD TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY ARTICLES 69 AND 70,
Operative part
THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE PRESENT APPLICATION AS INADMISSIBLE;
2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE ACTION, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION .