Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 December 1965. - Edith Kalkuhl v European Parliament. - Case 47-65.



European Court reports

French edition Page 01251

Dutch edition Page 01304

German edition Page 01330

Italian edition Page 01214

English special edition Page 01011

Danish special edition Page 00155

Greek special edition Page 00225

Portuguese special edition Page 00277



Summary

Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1 . OFFICIALS - APPEALS - EXPIRY OF TIME-LIMIT - REQUEST OR COMPLAINT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS - BAR TO RIGHT OF ACTION

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EAEC, ARTICLE 91 )

2 . OFFICIALS - APPEAL AGAINST A MEASURE CONFIRMING AN EARLIER DECISION - EXPIRY OF PERIOD FOR LODGING APPEAL AGAINST THAT DECISION - LOSS OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EAEC, ARTICLE 91 )

3 . PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT GRANTING ANNULMENT - LEGAL EFFECTS - LIMITED TO THE PARTIES AND TO THE PERSONS DIRECTLY CONCERNED BY THE MEASURE ANNULLED - JUDGMENT CONSTITUTING A NEW FACTOR - CONCEPT

Summary

1 . CF . PARAGRAPH 1, SUMMARY IN CASE 52/64 ( 1965 ) ECR 981 .

A REQUEST OR COMPLAINT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS WHICH IS NOT MADE WITHIN THE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR FILING APPEALS TO THE COURT CANNOT, UPON THE EXPIRY OF THIS PERIOD, ESCAPE BEING TIME-BARRED .

*/ 664J0052 /*.

2 . CF . PARAGRAPH 2 OF SUMMARY IN CASE 55/64, ( 1965 ) ECR 837 .

A MEASURE WHICH MERELY CONFIRMS A PREVIOUS DECISION CANNOT REVIVE AN ALREADY TIME-BARRED RIGHT OF APPEAL AGAINST THAT DECISION .

*/ 664J0055 /*.

3 . CF . PARAGRAPH 4, SUMMARY, IN CASE 43/64, ( 1965 ) ECR 385 .

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 .

*/ 664J0043 /*.

Parties

IN CASE 47/65

EDITH KALKUHL, AN OFFICIAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, RESIDING AT 5 CITE HOLLESCHBIERG, HESPERAGE, REPRESENTED AND ASSISTED BY FERNAND PROBST OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF HER SAID COUNSEL, 26 AVENUE DE LA LIBERTE,

APPLICANT,

V

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - GENERAL, HANS ROBERT NORD, AND BY JACQUES FAYAUD, ACTING AS AGENTS, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE SECRETARIAT-GENERAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 19A RUE BEAUMONT,

DEFENDANT,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR THE GRANT OF A SPECIFIC STEP ON CLASSIFICATION,

Grounds

P.1013

THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION

BY AN APPLICATION OF 8 JULY 1965, THE APPLICANT CONTESTED BEFORE THE COURT THE REFUSAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENT OF 9 APRIL 1965 TO GIVE A FAVOURABLE REPLY TO HER COMPLAINT OF 30 MARCH 1965 RELATING TO THE CLASSIFICATION GIVEN TO HER BY A DECISION OF 15 JUNE 1962, NOTIFIED TO THE APPLICANT ON 20 DECEMBER 1962 .

BY ORDER OF 14 JULY 1965 THE COURT DECIDED TO EXAMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION OF ITS OWN MOTION .

UNDER ARTICLE 91(2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS APPEALS TO THE COURT MUST BE FILED WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION TO THE PERSON CONCERNED OF THE DECISION IN DISPUTE .

THEREFORE A REQUEST OR COMPLAINT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS WHICH IS NOT MADE WITHIN THIS PERIOD CANNOT REVIVE THE TIME-LIMIT .

IN THIS INSTANCE THE DECISION WAS NOTIFIED TO THE APPLICANT ON 20 DECEMBER 1962 AND HER COMPLAINT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED ON 30 MARCH 1965, THUS OCCURRED MORE THAN TWO YEARS LATER, THAT IS, MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 91(2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .

THAT COMPLAINT DID NOT THEREFORE REVIVE THE TIME - LIMIT .

NO FACTOR CAN BE FOUND IN THE REPLY GIVEN TO THE COMPLAINT ON 9 APRIL 1965 BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY CAPABLE OF CAUSING THE PERIOD LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 91 TO START TO RUN AFRESH .

IN FACT THAT REPLY MERELY CONFIRMED THE DECISION OF 20 DECEMBER 1962 .

IT COULD NOT, THEREFORE, REOPEN THE PERIOD FOR BRINGING AN APPEAL TO THE COURT .

THE APPLICANT REFERS TO THE NEW FACTOR WHICH, ACCORDING TO HER, IS CONSTITUTED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 7 JULY 1964 IN CASE 70/63, A CASE WHICH ONE OF ITS SERVANTS, MR COLLOTTI, BROUGHT AGAINST ITS ADMINISTRATION .

THE ONLY PERSONS CONCERNED BY THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ANNULLING A MEASURE TAKEN BY AN INSTITUTION ARE THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION AND THOSE PERSONS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE MEASURE WHICH IS ANNULLED . SUCH A JUDGMENT CAN ONLY CONSTITUTE A NEW FACTOR AND CAUSE THE PERIODS FOR BRINGING APPEALS TO START TO RUN AFRESH AS REGARDS THOSE PARTIES AND PERSONS .

AS THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN THIS INSTANCE THE APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE .

Decision on costs

THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN HER APPLICATION .

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

HOWEVER, UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, IN PROCEEDINGS BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES, INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .

Operative part

THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )

HEREBY :

1 . DISMISSES APPLICATION 47/65 AS INADMISSIBLE;

2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE ACTION, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE INCURRED BY THE DEFENDANT INSTITUTION .