BIB.ORDER
C-7/99 P61999O00070024.00012680126845CJORDER OF 30. 4. 1999 — CASE C-7/99 P
CAMPOU v COMMISSION
Order of the Court
30 April 1999(*)
In Case C-7/99 P,
Franco Campoli, official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels, Belgium, represented by Sergio Diana, of the Cagliari and Brussels Bars, with an address for service at 205 Rue Belliard, Brussels,
appellant,APPEAL against the order of 12 October 1998 in Case T-235/97 Campoli v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-577 and II-1731, seeking to have that order set aside and requesting that the forms of order sought at first instance be upheld,
the other party to the proceedings being:Commission of the European Communities,
defendant at first instance,THE COURT,
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges,
Advocate General: P. Léger,
Registrar: R. Grass,
after hearing the Advocate General,
makes the following
Order
1By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 14 January 1999, Mr Campoli brought an appeal pursuant to Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice and the corresponding provisions of the ECSC and Euratom Statutes against the order of 12 October 1998 in Case T-235/97 Campoli ν Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-577 and II-1731 (hereinafter ‘the contested order ’), dismissing as inadmissible his action for annulment, first, of the Commission's decision of 16 October 1996 rejecting his application for reclassification in grade and, second, of the Commission's decision of 29 April 1997 rejecting the complaint lodged against the decision of 16 October 1996.
2In accordance with Article 112(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the contested order was appended to the appeal, in the form of a copy dated 13 October 1998 the authenticity of which was confirmed by the signature of the Registrar of the Court of First Instance. The appeal states that the contested order was notified to the appellant by letter of the Registrar dated 13 November 1998, a copy of which is also appended to the appeal.
3When requested by the Registry of the Court of Justice to state the date of notification of the contested order, counsel for the appellant replied that the letter of notification had been received on 14 November 1998. However, it appears from the case-file passed by the Registry of the Court of First Instance to the Registry of the Court of Justice that, although the letter accompanying the certified copy of the contested order — sent by registered mail with a request for acknowledgment of receipt — was mistakenly dated 13 November 1998, the acknowledgment of receipt was signed by the addressee on 19 October 1998, a date attested to by the postmark affixed by the post office responsible for returning that acknowledgment to the sender.
4Under Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where an appeal is, in whole or in part, clearly inadmissible or clearly unfounded, the Court may at any time, acting on a report from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, by reasoned order dismiss the appeal in whole or in part.
5Pursuant to Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal must be brought within two months of the notification of the decision appealed against.
6It is clear from the case-law concerning the jurisdiction of the Community judicature and the procedure before those Courts that the date of notification or service of an act is the date on which that act is received (see, to that effect, as regards the notification of decisions in proceedings brought under the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, Case 108/79 Belfiore ν Commission [1980] ECR 1769, paragraph 7; Case 152/85 Misset ν Council [1987] ECR 223, paragraph 7; and, as regards the lodging of an application initiating proceedings, the order of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 1992 in Case T-47/92 Lenz and Others ν Commission [1992] ECR II-2523, paragraph 34).
7It follows that the point at which time starts to run for the purposes of bringing an appeal is the date of reception of notification of the contested judgment or order, that is to say, in the present case, 19 October 1998, the date indicated by the addressee of the notification on the acknowledgment of receipt and confirmed by the postmark affixed by the post office which returned that acknowledgment.
8Thus the appeal lodged on 14 January 1999 was lodged outside the two-month period prescribed by Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice and must therefore be dismissed as clearly inadmissible.
Costs
9Pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure, the appellant must bear his own costs.
On those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby orders:
- 1.The appeal is dismissed as inadmissible.
- 2.The appellant shall bear his own costs.