CELEX: 61967CJ0010
Language: en
Date: 1967-06-22 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 June 1967. # Johannes Coenraad Moulijn v Commission of the CEE. # Case 10-67.

Avis juridique important

|

61967J0010

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 June 1967.  -  Johannes Coenraad Moulijn v Commission of the CEE.  -  Case 10-67.  

European Court reports French edition Page 00191 Dutch edition Page 00184 German edition Page 00196 Italian edition Page 00172 English special edition Page 00147 Danish special edition Page 00361 Greek special edition Page 00525 Portuguese special edition Page 00591

SummaryPartiesSubject of the caseGroundsDecision on costsOperative part
Keywords

++++OFFICIALS - DISPUTES WITH THE ADMINISTRATION - APPEAL THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS MADE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD FOR APPEAL TO THE COURT - TIME-LIMIT FOR APPEAL TO THE COURT NOT RETAINED  ( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EEC, ARTICLES 90 AND 91 )  

Summary

CF . PARAGRAPH 1, SUMMARY, JOINED CASES 27 AND 30/64, ( 1965 ) ECR 481 .  IT APPEARS FROM ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, READ TOGETHER, THAT APPEALS THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME TIME - LIMITS AS APPLIES TO APPEALS TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE, PROVIDED THAT THEY WERE THEMSELVES INSTITUTED WITHIN THE TIME LAID DOWN FOR APPEALS TO THE COURT . IN THE CASE OF A REJECTION OF AN APPEAL THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS, THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPLICANT BECOMES AWARE OF THIS REJECTION CONSTITUTES THE TERMINATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND MARKS THE DATE FROM WHICH TIME BEGINS TO RUN IN RESPECT OF THE TIME LIMIT FOR LODGING AN APPEAL TO THE COURT .  */ 664J0027 /*.  

Parties

IN CASE 10/67  JOHANNES COENRAAD MOULIJN, AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED AND ASSISTED BY F . SALOMONSON, ADVOCATE OF THE DORDRECHT BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF JONKHEER T.C.H.M.G . VAN RIJCKEVORSEL, ROODT-SUR-SYRE,  APPLICANT,  V  COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, L . DE LA FONTAINE, ASSISTED BY J . BOURGEOIS, A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF H . MANZANARES, SECRETARY OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, 2 PLACE DE METZ,  DEFENDANT,  

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 2(4 ) OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY AND OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY, 

Grounds

P.149  THE DEFENDANT HAS RAISED THE OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPLICATION WAS FILED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT .  THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 2(4 ) OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EEC WAS REFUSED BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF ADMINISTRATION, THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN THIS MATTER, BY A DECISION OF 4 FEBRUARY 1966 AS SET OUT IN NOTES DATED 1 APRIL 1966 AND 28 JUNE 1966 .  THE PRESENT APPLICATION IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE IMPLIED DECISION OF REFUSAL TO BE INFERRED FROM THE SILENCE OF THE COMMISSION AFTER RECEIVING THE APPLICANT'S COMPLAINT OF 11 NOVEMBER 1966 WHEREBY HE REPEATED HIS REQUEST . THEREFORE THIS IMPLIED REFUSAL AMOUNTS TO A CONFIRMATION OF THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR - GENERAL OF ADMINISTRATION .  UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 91(2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS APPEALS SHALL BE FILED WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION OF THE DECISION TO THE PERSON CONCERNED .  ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT A COMPLAINT UNDER ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS MAY BE SUBMITTED AT ANY TIME, IT CAN ONLY EXTEND THE PERIOD ALLOWED UNDER ARTICLE 91(2 ) IF LODGED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THAT PERIOD .  IN THIS CASE THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS WAS MADE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED FOR APPEAL TO THE COURT AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF ADMINISTRATION OF 4 FEBRUARY 1966, WHICH IS THE ORIGIN OF THIS DISPUTE AND WHICH ALL THE SUBSEQUENT MEASURES HAVE MERELY CONFIRMED .  THE PRESENT APPLICATION IS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE AS BEING OUT OF TIME .  

Decision on costs

THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN HIS APPLICATION .  UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 69(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .  HOWEVER, UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 70 OF THE SAID RULES OF PROCEDURE, IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY OFFICIALS OR OTHER SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES THE INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .  

Operative part

THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )  HEREBY :  1 . DISMISSES THE PRESENT APPLICATION AS INADMISSIBLE;  2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE ACTION, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION .