CELEX: 61968CJ0033
Language: en
Date: 1969-10-30 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 October 1969. # Eva Rittweger v Commission of the European Communities. # Case 33-68.

Avis juridique important

|

61968J0033

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 October 1969.  -  Eva Rittweger v Commission of the European Communities.  -  Case 33-68.  

European Court reports 1969 Page 00393 Danish special edition Page 00103 Greek special edition Page 00141 Portuguese special edition Page 00147

PartiesSubject of the caseGroundsDecision on costsOperative part
Parties

++++IN CASE 33/68  EVA RITTWEGER, AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ALEX BONN, ADVOCATE OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR,  APPLICANT,  V  COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, LOUIS DE LA FONTAINE, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF EMILE REUTER, LEGAL ADVISER TO THE COMMISSION, 4 BOULEVARD ROYAL,  DEFENDANT,  

Subject of the case

APPLICATION  ( A ) FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISIONS OF 3 OCTOBER 1968 AND 11 NOVEMBER 1968 BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION;  ( B ) FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE ALLOWANCE FOR A DEPENDENT PERSON IS TO CONTINUE TO BE GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT IN RESPECT OF HER MOTHER;  

Grounds

1 THE APPLICATION, BASED UPON ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, SEEKS ON THE ONE HAND THE ANNULMENT OF TWO DECISIONS DATED 3 OCTOBER AND 11 NOVEMBER 1968 COMMUNICATING TO THE APPLICANT AND AFTERWARDS CONFIRMING THAT THE ALLOWANCE FOR A DEPENDENT PERSON PROVIDED FOR, AS FAR AS SHE IS CONCERNED, BY ARTICLE 5 OF THE GENERAL REGULATIONS OF THE ECSC WHICH ENTERED INTO FORCE ON 1 JULY 1956 AND WERE CONTINUED BY ARTICLE 96 OF THE ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS AND ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 259/68, WAS WITHDRAWN FROM HER, AND ON THE OTHER HAND A DECLARATION THAT THIS ALLOWANCE : " MUST CONTINUE TO BE PAID TO THE APPLICANT IN RESPECT OF HER MOTHER ".  2 THE APPLICANT HAS BENEFITTED SINCE 1954 FROM THE ABOVEMENTIONED ALLOWANCE, WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION GRANTED HER SO LONG AS THE CONDITIONS FOR ITS PAYMENT WERE FULFILLED; AN ANNUAL CHECK ON THIS WAS TO BE KEPT BY THE ADMINISTRATION .  3 THESE CONDITIONS ARE LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 5(C ) OF THE GENERAL REGULATIONS MENTIONED ABOVE UNDER WHICH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE DEPENDENT PERSON MUST INVOLVE THE SERVANT CONCERNED IN HEAVY EXPENDITURE .  4 THE DEFENDANT CONSIDERED THAT, HAVING REGARD TO THE INCOME OF THE APPLICANT, THIS EXPENDITURE COULD NO LONGER BE REGARDED AS SUFFICIENTLY HEAVY TO JUSTIFY THE CONTINUANCE OF THE ALLOWANCE AND WITHDREW IT BY THE DECISION OF 3 OCTOBER 1968 .  5 UPON AN APPEAL BY THE APPLICANT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS AND AFTER A FRESH EXAMINATION OF HER PERSONAL POSITION THE ALLOWANCE WAS REINSTATED BY A DECISION OF 13 MARCH 1969 " FOR A FURTHER YEAR ".  6 NEVERTHELESS BY AN EXPLANATORY NOTE OF 6 JUNE 1969 THE DEFENDANT EXPLAINED THAT THE CLAUSE MENTIONING A TIME IN RELATION TO THE GRANT OF AN ALLOWANCE DID NOT SIGNIFY THAT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THIS PERIOD THE GRANT WOULD NOT BE CONTINUED, BUT ONLY THAT AT SUCH TIME THERE WOULD BE A FRESH EXAMINATION OF THE APPLICANT'S POSITION IN ORDER TO CHECK WHETHER THE CONDITIONS FOR PAYMENT WERE STILL FULFILLED .  7 THE APPLICANT THUS FOUND HERSELF REINSTATED IN LAW IN THE SAME SITUATION IN WHICH SHE HAD BEEN BEFORE THE DISPUTED DECISIONS WERE TAKEN .  8 THE APPLICATION WHICH SEEKS THE ANNULMENT OF THE DISPUTED DECISIONS AND THE CONTINUATION OF THE ALLOWANCE HAS BECOME WITHOUT PURPOSE, SINCE THE DISPUTED DECISIONS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN AND THE ALLOWANCE TO THE APPLICANT IS BEING CONTINUED ON THE SAME CONDITIONS AS BEFORE .  9 IT MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED AS HAVING BECOME INADMISSIBLE FOR LACK OF PURPOSE .  

Decision on costs

10 UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE THE COSTS INCURRED BY INSTITUTIONS IN APPLICATIONS BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES SHALL BE BORNE BY THE LATTER, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 69(3 ) OF THOSE RULES .  11 THE DEFENDANT HAS AGREED IN ITS STATEMENT OF DEFENCE TO BEAR THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS INCURRED BY THE APPLICANT UNTIL THE LODGING OF ITS STATEMENT .  12 HOWEVER IT WAS ONLY IN THE SCHEDULE TO ITS REJOINDER THAT IT PRODUCED A STAFF MEMORANDUM OF 6 JUNE 1969 CONTAINING THE NECESSARY DETAILS ON THE SCOPE OF ITS DECISION WITHDRAWING THE DISPUTED MEASURES .  13 UNDER THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 69(3 ) MENTIONED ABOVE, THE COURT MAY ORDER EVEN A SUCCESSFUL PARTY TO BEAR THE COSTS WHICH THAT PARTY HAS CAUSED THE OPPOSITE PARTY TO INCUR .  14 IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ORDER THE COMMISSION TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS .  

Operative part

THE COURT  HEREBY :  1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION AS INADMISSIBLE FOR LACK OF PURPOSE;  2 . ORDERS THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS .