CELEX: 61974CJ0061
Language: en
Date: 1975-04-15
Title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 April 1975. # Michelina Santopietro v Commission of the European Communities. # Case 61-74.

Avis juridique important

|

61974J0061

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 April 1975.  -  Michelina Santopietro v Commission of the European Communities.  -  Case 61-74.  

European Court reports 1975 Page 00483 Greek special edition Page 00153 Portuguese special edition Page 00175

PartiesSubject of the caseGroundsDecision on costsOperative part
Parties

++++IN CASE 61/74  MICHELINA PITRONE ( NEE SANTOPIETRO ), A FORMER MEMBER OF THE TEMPORARY STAFF OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EEC, RESIDING AT 45 BOULEVARD CHARLEMANGE, BRUSSELS, REPRESENTED BY VICTOR BIEL, ADVOCATE OF THE COUR SUPERIEURE DE JUSTICE OF THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF MR BIEL, 71 RUE DES GLACIS, APPLICANT,  V  COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, THOMAS F . CUSACK, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF ITS LEGAL ADVISER, P . LAMOUREUX, 4 BOULEVARD ROYAL, DEFENDANT,  

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAD A CONTRACT AS A MEMBER OF THE TEMPORARY STAFF EXPIRING ON 31 JULY 1974 AND THAT THE COMMISSION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO TERMINATE THAT CONTRACT OTHERWISE THAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 47 ET SEQ . OF THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF OTHER SERVANTS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND, CONSEQUENTLY, FOR AN ORDER FOR THE COMMISSION TO PAY TO THE APPLICANT HER SALARY FROM 1 NOVEMBER 1973 TO 31 JULY 1974, 

Grounds

1 THE APPLICANT ASKS THE COURT TO DECLARE THAT SHE HELD A CONTRACT AS A MEMBER OF THE TEMPORARY STAFF EXPIRING ON 31 JULY 1974 AND THAT THE COMMISSION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO TERMINATE THAT CONTRACT OTHERWISE THAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY ARTICLES 47 ET SEQ . OF THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF OTHER SERVANTS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .  2 IN ADDITION, AND AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH DECLARATIONS, SHE ASKS THAT THE COMMISSION BE ORDERED TO PAY TO HER HER SALARY FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1 NOVEMBER 1973 TO 31 JULY 1974 .  3 IT IS APPROPRIATE, FIRST OF ALL, TO ESTABLISH WHETHER THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION OFFERED THE APPLICANT A RENEWAL OF HER CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR .  4 ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION'S DEPARTMENTS APPEAR TO HAVE HAD THE INTENTION OF RENEWING THE APPLICANT'S CONTRACT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, SUCH INTENTION WAS NOT CRYSTALLIZED IN AN EXPRESS OFFER TO THE APPLICANT BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY .  5 THE ONLY EXPRESS OFFER OF A RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACT COMING FROM THAT AUTHORITY AND ADDRESSED TO THE APPLICANT WAS THE OFFER IN THE TWO LETTERS OF 24 AND 28 AUGUST 1973 TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS .  6 EVEN IF IT WERE ASSUMED THAT THE COMPUTER CARD OF 24 AUGUST 1973 CONCERNING PERSONAL INFORMATION ON THE APPLICANT COULD BE INTERPRETED AS CONTAINING AN OFFER FOR THE EXTENSION OF HER CONTRACT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, THAT OFFER WOULD IN ANY EVENT HAVE BEEN REVOKED BY THE EXPRESS OFFER OF AN EXTENSION OF THREE MONTHS CONTAINED IN THE TWO LETTERS OF 24 AND 28 AUGUST 1973 .  7 MOREOVER IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE APPLICANT RECEIVED THE COMPUTER CARD AND THE TWO LETTERS AT THE SAME TIME .  8 SHE THEREFORE NEVER HAD AN OFFER OF THE EXTENSION OF HER CONTRACT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, WHICH SHE COULD HAVE ACCEPTED .  9 THE APPLICANT'S REMAINING CONCLUSIONS PRESUPPOSE THAT THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTRACT FOR ONE YEAR IS ESTABLISHED .  10 THE APPLICATION MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .  

Decision on costs

11 UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLES 69 ( 2 ) AND 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS, BUT IN PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES AGAINST INSTITUTIONS, INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .  12 HOWEVER, UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 69 ( 3 ) THE COURT MAY IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES ORDER THAT THE PARTIES BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS IN WHOLE OR IN PART .  13 BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF CLARITY IN THE CONDUCT OF THE COMMISSION, BOTH BY REASON OF THE DELAY WITH WHICH IT INDICATED ITS INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION AND BY REASON OF THE CONTRADICTORY PARTICULARS WITH WHICH IT SUPPLIED HER, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO APPLY THIS PROVISION AND TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO PAY THE APPLICANT'S COSTS .  

Operative part

THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )  HEREBY :  1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION;  2 . ORDERS THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES TO PAY THE COSTS .