61964CJ0050_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Endorsements
Operative part
Parties
IN JOINED CASES :
50/64
RALPH LOEBISCH, A HEAD OF SECTION IN THE TRANSLATION DEPARTMENT OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COUNCILS,
51/64
TOMMASO VALERIO, A HEAD OF SECTION IN THE TRANSLATION DEPARTMENT OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COUNCILS,
53/64
GUILLAUME BATTIN, A HEAD OF SECTION IN THE TRANSLATION DEPARTMENT OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COUNCILS,
54/64
WOUTER VAN ROYEN, A HEAD OF SECTION IN THE TRANSLATION DEPARTMENT OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COUNCILS,
57/64
HEINZ NOACK, HEAD OF THE TRANSLATION DEPARTMENT OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COUNCILS, REPRESENTED AND ASSISTED BY FERNAND PROBST, ADVOCATE OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT HIS CHAMBERS AT 26 AVENUE DE LA LIBERTE,
APPLICANTS,
V
COUNCILS OF THE EEC, EAEC AND ECSC, REPRESENTED BY HANS JUERGEN LAMBERS, LEGAL ADVISER TO THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COUNCILS, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF JACQUES LECLERC, AN OFFICIAL OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COUNCILS, 3 RUE AUGUSTE - LUMIERE,
DEFENDANT,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION TO BE CLASSIFIED IN A PARTICULAR STEP OF A GRADE;
Grounds
P.830
ADMISSIBILITY
THE DEFENDANTS PLEAD THAT THE APPEALS ARE INADMISSIBLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPLICATIONS WERE LODGED AFTER THE LEGAL TIME-LIMITS HAD EXPIRED .
THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE REJECTION BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE COUNCILS OF COMPLAINTS MADE BY THE APPLICANTS WITH A VIEW TO OBTAINING A HIGHER STEP THAN THE ONE ACCORDED TO THEM BY THE DECISIONS OF 28 MARCH 1963 . AN ANALYSIS OF THESE REJECTIONS SHOWS THAT IN EACH OF THESE CASES THEY WERE IN FACT CONFIRMATIONS OF THE SAID DECISIONS OF 28 MARCH 1963 WHEREBY THE APPLICANTS WERE ALLOTTED THEIR GRADES . IT IS ADMITTED ON ALL SIDES THAT THESE DECISIONS GAVE THE APPLICANTS A LOWER STEP THAN THE ONE TO WHICH THEY CLAIM TO BE ENTITLED . THEREFORE, SINCE THE APPLICANTS' COMPLAINTS ORIGINATE IN THE DECISIONS OF 28 MARCH 1963, IT IS AGAINST THESE DECISIONS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE LODGED THEIR APPEALS WITHIN THE TIME-LIMITS LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS . HOWEVER BOTH THE PRESENT APPEALS AND THE SAID COMPLAINTS WERE LODGED OUTSIDE THE ABOVEMENTIONED LEGAL TIME-LIMITS .
P.831
NEVERTHELESS THE APPLICANTS ASSERT THAT THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY THE COURT ON 7 JULY 1964 IN CASE 70/63 CONSTITUTES A NEW FACTOR CALCULATED TO CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS WHICH LED TO THE DISPUTED GRADING, AND THAT THIS ENABLED THE PERIOD FOR LODGING AN APPEAL TO START TO RUN AFRESH . IN SUPPORT OF THIS ARGUMENT THEY REFER TO THE JUDGMENT OF 22 MARCH 1961 IN JOINED CASES 42 AND 49/59, AND CONCLUDE THAT THE REFUSAL OF THE COUNCILS TO REVOKE THE DECISIONS OF 28 MARCH 1963 CONSTITUTES A NEW DECISION WHICH CAN BE CONTESTED .
AS REGARDS THE SAID JUDGMENT IN CASE 70/63, APART FROM THE ACTUAL PARTIES IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT, THE ONLY PERSONS CONCERNED BY THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ANNULLING A MEASURE ARE THE PERSONS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE MEASURE WHICH IS ANNULLED . SUCH A JUDGMENT CAN ONLY CONSTITUTE A NEW FACTOR AS REGARDS THOSE PERSONS .
IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 70/63 ANNULLED A DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN SO FAR AS IT FIXED THE STEP IN WHICH THE PERSON CONCERNED WAS TO BE CLASSIFIED . THIS DECISION ONLY DEALT WITH THE INDIVIDUAL POSITION OF THE PERSON CONCERNED AND CANNOT BE OF DIRECT CONCERN TO THIRD PARTIES SUCH AS THE APPLICANTS . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE, AS REGARDS THE APPLICANTS THE ABOVEMENTIONED JUDGMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A NEW FACTOR ENABLING THE PERIOD FOR LODGING AN APPEAL, WHICH IN THIS CASE HAS EXPIRED, TO START TO RUN AFRESH .
IN ARGUING AGAINST THIS BAR NO SUPPORT CAN BE FOUND IN THE JUDGMENT IN JOINED CASES 42 AND 49/59, WHICH WERE BROUGHT BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES AS THOSE WHOSE DISPUTE WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE JUDGMENT IN JOINED CASES 32 AND 33/58, AND THE REASON FOR BRINGING WHICH WAS THE REFUSAL OF ONE OF THE PARTIES TO TAKE CERTAIN MEASURES WHICH WERE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE PREVIOUS JUDGMENT DELIVERED AS BETWEEN THOSE PARTIES . IN THE PRESENT CASE THE FACTS ARE NOT THE SAME .
FOR THE REASONS STATED, AND WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE SUBMISSION CONCERNING GOOD FAITH WHICH WAS RAISED AS A VERY MINOR POINT, THE CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN IS THAT THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS WERE LODGED OUT OF TIME AND THAT THEY ARE CONSEQUENTLY INADMISSIBLE .
Decision on costs
THE APPLICANTS HAVE FAILED IN THEIR APPLICATIONS .
UNDER ARTICLE 69(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . HOWEVER ARTICLE 70 OF THE SAID RULES PROVIDES THAT, IN PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED 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 PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY AND THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY;
HAVING REGARD TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY AND THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY;
HAVING REGARD TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY ARTICLES 69, 70, 91 AND 95,
Operative part
THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS AS INADMISSIBLE;
2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANTS TO BEAR THE COSTS, EXCEPT THOSE INCURRED BY THE DEFENDANT .