Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:1999:158
Date: 1999-03-18
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Appeals;Revision of a judgment
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Appeal - inadmissible

Summary 
72. Accordingly, it does not appear from the 
appellant's arguments taken as a whole that in 
examining his submissions the Court of First 
Instance erred in its assessment of a fact which 
might have been new and decisive. He has 
therefore failed to establish that the assess­
ment made was wrong in law. 
I — Costs 
Costs at first instance 
73. The appellant also appeals against the 
order for costs made by the Court of First 
Instance. 
74. Since in these proceedings all the other 
grounds of appeal must be rejected, all that 
remains is to determine the action challenging 
the costs. In such a case the second paragraph 
of Article 51 of the EC Statute provides that 
an appeal regarding only the amount of the 
costs or the party ordered to pay them must 
be rejected as inadmissible. 34 
Costs of the appeal 
75. Under Article 122 of the Rules of Proce­
dure of the Court of Justice the Court is to 
make a decision as to costs where the appeal 
is unfounded. The second paragraph provides 
that in proceedings between the Communi­
ties and their servants Article 70 is to apply 
only to appeals brought by institutions. That 
is not the case here and, accordingly, Article 
70, which provides that in proceedings 
between the Communities and their servants 
the institutions are to bear their own costs, 
does not apply. 
76. In proceedings between the Communities 
and their servants Article 122 also provides, 
however, that by way of derogation from 
Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure the 
Court of Justice may, in appeals brought by 
officials or other servants of an institution, 
order the parties to share the costs where 
equity so requires. 
34 — CaseC-396/93 PHeinrichsvCommission[l995]ECR1-2611, 
paragraphs 65 and 66, and order in Case C-140/96 P Dimi-
triadis v Court of Auditors [1997] ECR 1-5635, paragraph 
56. 
I -1808 
DE COMPTE v PARLIAMENT 
77. In its pleadings the Parliament requested 
that an order for costs be made in accordance 
with the second subparagraph of Article 69(3), 
which provides that the Court may order a 
party, even if successful, to pay costs which 
the Court considers that party to have unrea­
sonably or vexatiously caused the opposite 
party to incur. Since the Parliament stated in 
the body of its submissions that the appellant 
should be ordered to pay the costs, however, 
it may be concluded that the Parliament 
requested that the appellant be ordered to 
pay the costs in any event, therefore no doubt 
even if he were successful. As the appellant 
has been unsuccessful, however, he should be 
ordered to pay the costs in accordance with 
the first paragraph of Article 69(2). 
J — Conc lus ion 
78. I therefore propose that the C o u r t should: 
(1) dismiss the appeal; 
(2) order the appellant to pay the costs of the proceedings. 
I - 1809