Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 1973. - Monique Gunnella v Commission of the European Communities. - Case 33-72.



European Court reports 1973 Page 00475

Greek special edition Page 00535

Portuguese special edition Page 00211



Summary

Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1 . OFFICIALS - DISPUTES WITH THE ADMINISTRATION - TIME LIMITS FOR BRINGING AN ACTION - NATURE - EXAMINATION BY THE COURT OF ITS OWN MOTION

( STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 91 )

2 . OFFICIALS - DISPUTES WITH THE ADMINISTRATION - ACT CONFIRMING AN EARLIER ACT - EXPIRY OF THE TIME LIMIT FOR BRINGING AN ACTION

( STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 91 )

Summary

1 . IT IS FOR THE COURT TO EXAMINE, EVEN OF ITS OWN MOTION, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TIME LIMITS FOR BRINGING AN ACTION HAVE BEEN OBSERVED, THESE BEING A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST .

2 . AN ACT CONFIRMING AN EARLIER ACT DOES NOT SET A NEW TIME LIMIT .

Parties

IN CASE 33/72

MONIQUE GUNNELLA, AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, RESIDENT AT VIA ALBERTO 17, IN RANCO ( VARESE, ITALY ), REPRESENTED BY MARCEL SLUSNY, ADVOCATE AT THE BRUSSELS COURT OF APPEAL, HAVING CHOSEN HER ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG C/O MLLE VICTORIA ZANDONA, 1 RUE GUILLAUME SCHNEIDER, APPLICANT,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, PIERRE LAMOUREUX, ACTING AS AGENT, HAVING CHOSEN ITS ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF ITS LEGAL ADVISER EMIL REUTER, 4 BOULEVARD ROYAL, DEFENDANT,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR THE GRANT OF EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE

Grounds

1 THE APPLICANT ASKS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF 9 MARCH 1972 WHEREBY THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO GRANT HER THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE PROVIDED BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS;

2 SHE ASKS IN ADDITION THAT HER CLAIM TO BE GRANTED SUCH AN ALLOWANCE WITH EFFECT FROM 30 SEPTEMBER 1965 BE RECOGNIZED AS FOUNDED IN LAW;

3 THE DEFENDANT HAS RAISED IN THE COURSE OF THE ORAL PROCEEDINGS A PLEA OF INADMISSIBILITY ARISING OUT OF THE LATE SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION;

4 IT IS FOR THE COURT EVEN OF ITS OWN MOTION, TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE TIME LIMITS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED, THESE BEING A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST;

5 THE APPLICANT HAVING BEEN GRANTED SPECIAL LEAVE WAS TAKEN BACK INTO THE SERVICE OF THE COMMISSION WITH EFFECT FROM 20 SEPTEMBER 1965 AND POSTED TO THE JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE AT ISPRA;

6 ON THIS OCCASION THE SEVERAL COMPONENTS OF HER SALARY WERE FIXED BY A DECISION OF 5 OCTOBER 1965;

7 IT APPEARS FROM THE DOCUMENT IN WHICH THIS DECISION WAS RECORDED A COPY OF WHICH WAS SENT TO THE APPLICANT, THAT THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE WAS NOT GRANTED TO HER;

8 THE APPLICANT DID NOT CONTEST THIS DECISION EITHER BY A COMPLAINT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS WITHIN TWO MONTHS, OR BY AN APPEAL TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE WITHIN THREE MONTHS, AS SHE COULD HAVE DONE BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS THEN IN FORCE .

9 THE APPLICANT CONTESTS, BY THE PRESENT APPLICATION, THE LETTER DATED 9 MARCH 1972 IN WHICH THE DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL OF THE COMMISSION ASSERTED, IN REPLY TO A NOTE WHICH THE APPLICANT ADDRESSED TO IT ON 30 AUGUST 1971, THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT FULFIL THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLE 4 OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS SO AS TO OBTAIN THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE;

10 THAT LETTER, WHILE SETTING OUT IN DETAIL THE FACTS IT HAD TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, ONLY CONFIRMED THE PREVIOUS DECISION WHEREBY THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO GRANT THE APPLICANT THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE AND INFORMED HER THAT THIS COULD NOT BE PAID SO LONG AS SHE WAS EMPLOYED AT ISPRA;

11 SUCH A COMMUNICATION COULD NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF SETTING A FRESH TIME LIMIT IN THE APPLICANT' S FAVOUR;

12 THE APPLICATION IS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE;

Decision on costs

13 THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN HER APPLICATION;

14 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS;

15 HOWEVER, UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, COSTS INCURRED BY THE INSTITUTIONS, IN APPLICATIONS BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES, SHALL BE BORNE BY THE INSTITUTIONS;

Operative part

THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )

HEREBY :

1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION AS INADMISSIBLE;

2 . ORDERS EACH PARTY TO BEAR ITS OWN COSTS .