AT THE OFFICES OF MARIO CERVINO , LEGAL ADVISER TO THE COMMISSION ,
DEFENDANT ,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE COMMISSION ' S REFUSAL TO PAY THE APPLICANT ' S REMUNERATION IN A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THAT OF HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT , AND THE PAYMENT OF DAMAGES ARISING FROM THE INJURY CAUSED BY THIS REFUSAL ;
Grounds
1 BY AN APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 26 JUNE 1975 THE APPLICANT , AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES IN BRUSSELS , SEEKS THE ANNULMENT OF THE IMPLIED DECISION REJECTING HIS COMPLAINT OF 26 NOVEMBER 1974 .
2 THAT COMPLAINT CONCERNED , ON THE ONE HAND , THE REVOCATION OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION OF 27 AUGUST 1974 REFUSING TO CONTINUE TO PAY THE APPLICANT ' S REMUNERATION TO A BANK ESTABLISHED IN LUXEMBOURG AND , ON THE OTHER HAND , A FINDING THAT A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION WAS INVOLVED IN THE DELAY WITH WHICH THE COMMISSION TRANSMITTED TO THE APPLICANT A LEGAL DOCUMENT ADDRESSED TO HIM .
3 IN HIS COMPLAINT THE APPLICANT FURTHER SOUGHT THE PAYMENT OF DAMAGES FOR THE NON-MATERIAL AND MATERIAL DAMAGE WHICH HE CLAIMED TO HAVE SUFFERED BECAUSE OF THE TWO ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES .
4 THE COMPETENT ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY DID NOT REPLY TO THIS COMPLAINT WITHIN THE PERIOD LAID DOWN IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND THE APPLICANT THEREFORE BROUGHT AN APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
5 IN VIEW OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT , THE FACT THAT THE APPLICATION IS IN TWO PARTS , ONE DIRECTED AGAINST THE REFUSAL OF THE COMMISSION TO PAY THE APPLICANT ' S REMUNERATION TO A BANK ESTABLISHED IN THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG AND THE OTHER DIRECTED AGAINST THE ALLEGEDLY WRONGFUL FAILURE OF THE COMMISSION TO TRANSMIT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO THE APPLICANT THE JUDICIAL DOCUMENT ADDRESSED TO HIM , IS JUSTIFIED BY THE DESIRE TO ENSURE THE LINK WHICH ARTICLE 91 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ESTABLISHES BETWEEN AN APPEAL AND THE COMPLAINT FROM WHICH IT ARISES AND WHICH MUST PRECEDE IT .
6 SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE IS NOT SUCH AS TO RENDER THE APPLICATION IN THE PRESENT CASE INADMISSIBLE .
7 THE APPLICANT ARGUES FIRST THAT THE COMMISSION ' S REFUSAL TO CONTINUE TO PAY HIS REMUNERATION TO A BANKING INSTITUTION ESTABLISHED IN A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THAT OF HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT IS BASED ON AN ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 17 ( 1 ) OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
8 IN ADDITION HE ARGUES THAT THAT PROVISION FORMS NO OBSTACLE TO THE PAYMENT TO A BANK ESTABLISHED IN THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG OF THE EMOLUMENTS OF OFFICIALS OF BELGIAN AND LUXEMBOURG NATIONALITY POSTED TO BRUSSELS BECAUSE OF THE POSITION OF LUXEMBOURG CURRENCY IN RELATION TO BELGIAN CURRENCY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE BELGO-LUXEMBOURG ECONOMIC UNION , WHICH IS NOT TO BE AFFECTED BY THE TREATY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 233