natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Indgivelse af en ansøgning om fri proces kan således ikke, uanset sagens omstændigheder, bevirke, at fristen for indgivelse af hovedsagen forlænges eller suspenderes.
It cannot therefore be accepted that the making of an application for legal aid, in itself and independently of the circumstances of the case, has the effect of extending or suspending the period prescribed for bringing the action.
RETTENS KENDELSE (Femte Afdeling) 24. november 1999 *
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber) 24 November 1999 *
I sag T-109/98,
In Case T-109/98,
A.V.M., tjenestemand ved Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber, Bruxelles, ved advokat Olivier Eben, Bruxelles, og med valgt adresse i Esch/ Alzette hos advokat Jean Tonnar, 29, rue du Fossé, sagsøger, mod
A.V.M., an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Olivier Eben, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Esch-sur-Alzette at the Chambers of Jean Tonnar, 29 Rue du Fossé, applicant, v
Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber ved juridisk konsulent Julian Currall, som befuldmægtigede, og med valgt adresse i Luxembourg hos Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Kommissionen Juridiske Tjeneste, Wagnercentret, Kirchberg, sagsøgt,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by Julian Carrell, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, defendant,
Sagens faktiske omstændigheder
Facts giving rise to the proceedings
Den 27. og 28. maj 1994 blev to computere, som tilhørte Kommissionen, stjålet af sagsøgeren, således som det er blevet fastslået under de herom foretagne undersøgelser.
As established by an investigation, two computers belonging to the Commission were stolen by the applicant on 27 and 28 May 1994.
I henhold til artikel 87 i vedtægten for tjenestemænd i De Europæiske Fælles skaber (herefter »vedtægten«) iværksatte generaldirektøren for personale og administration som ansættelsesmyndighed disciplinær forfølgning over for sagsøgeren efter en forudgående høring af ham.
The Director-General for Personnel and Administration, acting in his capacity as appointing authority, initiated, pursuant to Article 87 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities ('the Staff Regulations'), a disciplinary procedure in respect of the applicant, who had been heard on the matter.
Med henblik herpå rejste ansættelsesmyndigheden sagen for Disciplinærrådet ved skrivelse af 29. september 1994, der var vedlagt den indberetning, som er omhandlet i artikel 1, stk. 1, i vedtægtens bilag IX, og hvori de påklagede forhold og de omstændigheder, under hvilke de var begået, var angivet.
For the purposes of this procedure, the appointing authority brought the matter before the Disciplinary Board by a note dated 29 September 1994 which was accompanied by the report required by the first paragraph of Article 1 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations stating the facts complained of and the circumstances in which they arose.
Den 31. januar 1995 afgav Disciplinærrådet en begrundet udtalelse i henhold til artikel 7 i vedtægtens bilag IX efter at have hørt sagsøgeren, som var bistået af sin advokat og fagforeningsrepræsentanten, og efter at have afhørt dr. Mancini som vidne. Det hedder i udtalelsens konklusion, at »Disciplinærrådet henstiller enstemmigt [til ansættelsesmyndigheden] at pålægge hr. V.M. en disciplinær sanktion i form af en degradation fra lønklasse D 1, 8. løntrin, til lønklasse D2, 8. løntrin, i henhold til artikel 86, stk. 2, litra e)«.
On 31 January 1995, having heard the applicant, assisted by his lawyer and by the trade union representative, and the applicant's witness, Dr Mancini, the Disciplinary Board delivered its reasoned opinion in accordance with Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and 'unanimously recommended [to the appointing authority] the imposition on Mr V. M. of the disciplinary measure referred to in Article 86(2)(e), namely downgrading from Grade D 1, Step 8, to Grade D 2, Step 8'.
Den 8. marts 1995 foretog ansættelsesmyndigheden en høring af sagsøgeren i henhold til artikel 7, stk. 3, i vedtægtens bilag IX.
On 8 March 1995 the appointing authority proceeded, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, to hear the applicant's case.
Under denne høring anmodede sagsøgerens repræsentant, advokat Vogel, generaldirektøren for personale og administration om at suspendere den disciplinære procedure og om efter en observationsperiode at tage situationen op til fornyet vurdering såvel på administrativt som på lægeligt niveau.
During the hearing, the applicant's lawyer, Mr Vogel, asked the Director-General of Personnel and Administration to stay the disciplinary proceedings and to order a re-assessment of the situation after a period of supervision, both administrative and medical.
Under dette møde advarede generaldirektøren for personale og administration A.V.M. mod at udvise en ukorrekt handlemåde fremover, men lod ham forstå, at han var indstillet på at vise ham en vis tillid ved at tage hensyn til hans vilje til at
At that hearing, the Director-General of Personnel and Administration, having warned Mr V. M. against any future improper conduct, indicated to him that he was prepared to place a certain trust in him, in view of the fact that Mr V. M. was
Han gav som følger heraf udtryk for, at han var rede til at udsætte den disciplinære procedure og tage situationen op til fornyet vurdering et år senere, idet han dog udtrykkeligt ville forbeholde sig muligheden for, når der var forløbet et år, at pålægge ham en disciplinær sanktion, såfremt hans adfærd på det tidspunkt måtte blive anset for utilfredsstillende, uanset overskridelsen af fristen i artikel 7, stk. 3, i vedtægtens bilag IX.
Consequently, the Director-General informed Mr V. M. that he was prepared to stay the disciplinary proceedings and to re-assess the situation in one year's time. He nevertheless expressly reserved the right to impose disciplinary measures on Mr V. M. once that period had expired, in the event of his conduct being found in the meantime to be unsatisfactory, and even though the period laid down in the third paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations would have expired.
Sagsøgeren erkendte med støtte fra advokat Vogel, at denne frem gangsmåde var i hans egen interesse og erklærede sig enig deri.
Mr V. M., with Mr Vogel's support, acknowledged that this course of action was in his best interests and indicated his agreement to it.
Ved skrivelse af 4. juni 1996 gav generaldirektøren for Personale og Administration, efter at have hørt sagsøgerens overordnede, sagsøgeren underretning om, at han forlængede perioden for suspension af den disciplinære procedure med ni måneder.
By letter of 4 June 1996, the Director-General of Personnel and Administration, having consulted both the applicant's immediate superior and the Medical Service, informed the applicant that he would stay the disciplinary proceedings for a further nine months.
Den 8. juli 1997 blev sagsøgeren på ansættelsesmyndighedens initiativ på ny hørt i henhold til artikel 7, stk. 3, i vedtægtens bilag IX.
On 8 July 1997 the appointing authority held a further hearing of the applicant under the third paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.
Den 10. oktober 1997 traf ansættelsesmyndigheden, efter at have fastslået, at sagsøgeren ikke havde overholdt betingelsen om at underkaste sig det nødvendige lægelige tilsyn, afgørelse om med virkning fra den 1. november 1997 at tildele ham en disciplinær sanktion i henhold til vedtægtens artikel 86, stk. 2, litra e), i form af en degradation fra lønklasse Dl, 8. løntrin, til lønklasse D2, 8. løntrin.
On 10 October 1997, having established that the applicant had not complied with the requirement to undergo the requisite medical examination, the appointing authority took the decision to impose the disciplinary measure referred to in Article 86(2)(e) of the Staff Regulations, namely downgrading from Grade D 1, Step 8, to Grade D 2, Step 8, with effect from 1 November 1997.
10 Ved skrivelse af 15. oktober 1997 til ansættelsesmyndigheden, der var benævnt »Klage i henhold til vedtægtens artikel 90«, bestred sagsøgeren flere punkter i afgørelsen om pålæggelse af den disciplinære sanktion og fremsatte en række supplerende bemærkninger.
10 By letter of 15 October 1997 addressed to the appointing authority and headed 'Complaint pursuant to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations', the applicant disputed several aspects of the decision imposing the disciplinary measure and made supplementary observations.
11 Ved skrivelse af 26. november 1997 supplerede sagsøgerens advokat klagen, idet han anførte grundene til at anfægte lovligheden af den pålagte disciplinære sanktion.
11 By letter of 26 November 1997, the applicant's adviser supplemented the complaint, setting out his reasons for disputing the legality of the disciplinary measure imposed.
Han rejste krav om ophævelse af sanktionen, om indstilling af den disciplinære procedure, og om, at sagsøgeren ikke blev pålagt andre sanktioner.
He claimed that the disciplinary measure should be annulled and that the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant should be closed and requested that no other disciplinary measures be taken in respect of the applicant.
I en anden skrivelse til ansættelsesmyndigheden af 9. december 1997 fremførte sagsøgerens advokat en række yderligere anbringender vedrørende udløbet af fristerne i henhold til vedtægtens bilag IX og gjorde gældende, at lægen ved administrations lægetjeneste havde tilsidesat sin tavshedspligt.
In a second letter dated 9 December 1997 addressed to the appointing authority, the applicant's adviser put forward further submissions concerning the timelimits laid down in Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and an alleged breach of medical confidentiality on the part of the doctor at the Administration's Medical Service.
12 Den 16. februar 1998 vedtog ansættelsesmyndigheden en afgørelse, hvorved den afviste sagsøgerens klage af 15. oktober 1997.
12 On 16 February 1998, the appointing authority took the decision to reject the applicant's complaint of 15 October 1997.
Denne afgørelse fik sagsøgeren meddelt den 24. februar 1998.
That decision was received by the applicant on 24 February 1998.
Sagens behandling og parternes påstande
Procedure and forms of order sought by the parties
13 Ved skrivelse indleveret til Justitskontoret den 17. april 1998 ansøgte sagsøgeren Retten om fri proces i henhold til procesreglementets artikel 94 med henblik på anlæggelse af sag til prøvelse af Kommissionens afgørelse af 10. oktober 1997 om at pålægge ham en disciplinær sanktion i form af en degradation.
13 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 17 April 1998, the applicant applied to the Court for legal aid pursuant to Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure, with a view to bringing an action against the Commission's decision of 10 October 1997 imposing the disciplinary measure of downgrading.
14 Ved kendelse af 17. juni 1998 afslog formanden for Rettens Femte Afdeling sagsøgerens ansøgning om fri proces med den begrundelse, at han ikke havde godtgjort at være ubemidlet.
14 By an order of 17 June 1998, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court dismissed the applicant's application for legal aid on the ground that the applicant had not provided evidence of lack of means.
15 Ved stævning indleveret til Rettens Justitskontor den 20. juli 1998 har sagsøgeren anlagt nærværende sag.
15 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 20 July 1998, the applicant brought the present action.
— Kommissionens afgørelse om at pålægge ham en disciplinær sanktion i form af en degradation fra lønklasse D1, 8. løntrin, til lønklasse D2, 8. løntrin, annulleres, og sagsøgeren indplaceres på ny i sin tidligere lønklasse.
— annul the Commission's decision which imposed on him the disciplinary measure of downgrading from Grade D 1, Step 8, to Grade D 2, Step 8 and reinstate him in his former grade;
— Kommissionen pålægges at indstille proceduren mod sagsøgeren.
— order that the disciplinary proceedings against him be closed;
— Det fastslås, at der ikke må pålægges sagsøgeren nogen anden disciplinær sanktion.
— order that no other disciplinary measure be taken in respect of him;
— Afgørelsen om sagens omkostninger træffes i overensstemmelse med proces reglementet.
— make an appropriate order as to costs.
18 I stævningen har sagsøgeren gjort gældende, at sagen, henset til fristen for indgivelse af ansøgningen om fri proces, blev anlagt inden tremånedersfristen fra meddelelsen af afgørelsen om afvisning af klagen.
18 In his application the applicant argues that, in view of there having been an interval in which the application for legal aid was made, the action was commenced within the three-month time-limit starting with the date on which the applicant was notified of the rejection of his complaint.
19 Kommissionen bestrider ikke, at sagen kan realitetsbehandles under hensyn til, at ansøgningen om fri proces blev indgivet inden tre måneder efter den udtrykkelige afvisning af klagen, men er i tvivl om rækkevidden af dommen i sagen Lallemand-Zeller mod Kommissionen (Rettens kendelse af 14.1.1993, sag T-92/92 AJ, Sml.
19 The Commission, while not disputing the admissibility of the action, in view of the application for legal aid made within the three-month period following the express rejection of the complaint, is, however, uncertain as to the implication of the order of the Court of First Instance in Case T-92/92 AJ Lallemand-Zeller v Commission [1993] ECR 11-31 and asks whether time should be prevented from running for the purposes of commencing an action only in a case in which the applicant himself, without the assistance of a lawyer, makes an application for legal aid.
II, s. 31) og rejser spørgsmålet, om en suspension af søgsmålsfristen ikke bør begrænses til det tilfælde, hvor sagsøgeren selv indgiver ansøgningen uden bistand fra en advokat, idet Kommissionen fremhæver, at ansøgningen om fri proces i den foreliggende sag blev indgivet af sagsøgerens advokat.
The Commission draws attention to the fact that, in the present case, the application for legal aid was made by the applicant's lawyer.
20 Ifølge procesreglementets artikel 113 kan Retten til enhver tid af egen drift efterprøve, om sagen skal afvises, fordi ufravigelige procesforudsætninger ikke er opfyldt, og træffe afgørelse i henhold til bestemmelserne i artikel 114, stk. 3 og 4.
20 Under Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court may at any time, of its own motion, consider whether there exists any absolute bar to proceeding with an action and give its decision in accordance with Article 114(3) and (4).
I den foreliggende sag finder Retten, at den er tilstrækkeligt oplyst i kraft af sagens dokumenter, og den har bestemt, at der ikke skal afholdes mundtlig forhandling.
In the present case, the Court considers that it has sufficient information from the documents before it and that it is unnecessary to open the oral procedure.
21 Ifølge fast retspraksis udgør betingelserne i vedtægtens artikel 90 og 91 for realitetsbehandling af et søgsmål, navnlig bestemmelserne vedrørende søgsmåls-
21 It is settled case-law that the conditions governing the admissibility of an action, as laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, in particular those
I den foreliggende sag skal det undersøges, om søgsmålsfristen på tre måneder i vedtægtens artikel 91, stk. 3, er blevet overholdt.
In the present case, it is necessary to consider whether the action was commenced within the period of three months prescribed by Article 91(3) of the Staff Regulations.
Ifølge vedtægtens artikel 91, stk. 3, løber søgsmålsfristen fra den dag, hvor den afgørelse, der er truffet som svar på klagen, meddeles, dvs. i denne sag fra den 24. februar 1998.
Under Article 91(3) of the Staff Regulations that period runs from the date of notification of the decision taken in response to the complaint. In the present case time started to run on 24 February 1998.
Beregnet i henhold til artikel 101, stk. 1, litra b), i Rettens procesreglement udløb søgsmålsfristen den 24. maj 1998.
Under Article 101(l)(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the period expired on 24 May 1998.
Da sagsøgeren har bopæl i Belgien, forlænges procesfristen under hensyn til afstanden med to dage i medfør af artikel 102, stk. 2, i Rettens procesreglement og artikel 1 i bilag II til Domstolens procesreg lement.
Since the applicant resides in Belgium, he is entitled to an extension, on account of distance, of two days by virtue of Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance and Article 1 of Annex II to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.
Fristen for at anlægge sag udløb følgelig den 26. maj 1998, medmindre denne frist, som hævdet af sagsøgeren, er blevet forlænget eller suspenderet ved, at der er indgivet ansøgning om fri proces.
It follows that the period within which the present action should have been brought expired on 26 May 1998 unless, as the applicant claims, it was extended or suspended by the making of the application for legal aid.
Det må herom fastslås, at Rettens procesreglement, navnlig artikel 94-97 om fri proces, ikke indeholder nogen bestemmelser, hvorefter indgivelse af en ansøgning
In this respect, it should be noted that the Rules of Procedure of the Court and, in particular, Articles 94 to 97 relating to legal aid, contain no provision under
A.V.M. MOD KOMMISSIONEN om fri proces har nogen virkning for beregningen eller udløbet af fristen for anlæggelse af hovedsagen.
A.V.M. V COMMISSION which the making of an application for legal aid has any effect on the calculation or running of a period prescribed for commencing an action.
En strikte overholdelse af fællesskabsbestemmelserne vedrørende procesfrister er i overensstemmelse med hensynet til retssikkerheden og nødvendigheden af at undgå enhver forskelsbehandling eller vilkårlighed i retsplejen, hvorfor disse bestemmelser kun kan fraviges, hvis der foreligger ganske særlige omstændigheder, som ikke kunne forudses, eller force majeure som omhandlet i artikel 42, stk. 2, i Domstolens statut (Domstolens dom af 26.11.1985, sag 42/85, Cockerill-Sambre mod Kommissionen, Sml. s. 3749, præmis 10, af 4.2.1987, sag 276/85, Cladakis mod Kommissionen, Sml. s. 495, præmis 11, og Domstolens kendelse af 7.5.1998, sag C-239/97, Irland mod Kommissionen, Sml. I, s. 2655, præmis 7).
Since the strict application of Community rules on procedural timelimits serves the requirement of legal certainty and the need to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice, there can be no derogation from the application of those rules unless there is a quite exceptional case of unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure as required by the second paragraph of Article 42 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice (see judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 42/85 Cockerill-Sambre v Commission [1985] ECR 3749, paragraph 10, judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 276/85 Cladakis v Commission [1987] ECR 495, paragraph 11, and order of the Court of Justice in Case C-239/97 Ireland v Commission [1998] ECR 1-2655, paragraph 7).
I den foreliggende sag har sagsøgeren ikke fremført noget forhold til godtgørelse af, at der forelå særlige omstændigheder, der ikke kunne forudses, eller force majeure, og som forhindrede ham i at anlægge sag inden for den i vedtægten fastsatte frist.
In the present case the applicant has not put forward any arguments with a view to establishing that exceptional circumstances, capable of constituting either a case of unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure, prevented him from commencing the action within the time-limit prescribed by the Staff Regulations.
Som det fremgår af kendelsen af 17. juni 1998 om afslaget på ansøgningen om fri proces, har sagsøgeren ikke godtgjort at være ubemidlet og har rent faktisk, som han selv har erkendt i ansøgningen om fri proces, været i stand til at sikre sig bistand fra en advokat under den administrative procedure, der ligeledes rådgav ham vedrørende ansøgningen om fri proces. Det var følgelig
As is evident from the order of 17 June 1998 dismissing the application for legal aid, the applicant did not provide evidence of lack of means and was in fact in a position, as he acknowledged in his application for legal aid, to secure, throughout the period prior to commencing the action, the services of a lawyer who, in addition, advised him in connection with the application for legal aid. It
På grund af forskellene mellem den foreliggende sag og kendelsen i den ovennævnte sag Lallemand-Zeller mod Kommissionen, kan der ikke støttes noget argument på nævnte sag, da den heri indgivne ansøgning om fri proces var berettiget og var indgivet af en ubemidlet ansøger uden bistand fra en advokat.
The order in Lallemand-Zeller ν Commission referred to above is not relevant in this context, given the differences between that case and the present case. The case giving rise to the order in Lallemand-Zeller concerned a well-founded application for legal aid made by an applicant who lacked means and did not have the assistance of a lawyer.
Da stævningen i den foreliggende sag først blev indleveret på Rettens Justitskontor den 20. juli 1998, men burde have været indgivet senest den 26. maj 1998, er sagen for sent anlagt.
Since the application was not lodged at the Court Registry until 20 July 1998 and the proceedings should have been, and could have been, commenced by 26 May 1998 at the latest, the action is out of time.
31 Sagen må derfor afvises.
31 The present action must, therefore, be dismissed as inadmissible.
32 Ifølge procesreglementets artikel 87, stk. 2, pålægges den tabende part at betale sagens omkostninger, hvis der er nedlagt påstand herom.
32 In accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs, if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings.
Ifølge artikel 88 bærer institutionerne dog selv deres egne omkostninger i tvister mellem Fællesskaberne og deres ansatte.
However, under Article 88 of those Rules, in proceedings between the Communities and their servants, the institutions are to bear their own costs.
Da sagsøgeren har tabt sagen, bærer hver part sine omkostninger.
Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, the parties shall bear their own costs.
Sag T-222/99 R
Case T-222/99 R
Jean-Claude Martinez og Charles de Gaulle mod Europa-Parlamentet
Jean-Claude Martinez and Charles de Gaulle v European Parliament
»Særlige rettergangsformer — afgørelse fra Parlamentet om fortolkning af en bestemmelse i forretningsordenen — politisk gruppe — formaliteten — fumus boni juris — uopsættelighed — afvejning af interesser«
(Application for interim measures — Measure of the Parliament interpreting a provision of its Rules of Procedure — Political Group — Admissibility — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)
Kendelse afsagt af Rettens præsident den 25. november 1999
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 25 November 1999 . . II - 3400
Særlige rettergangsformer — betingelser for antagelse til realitetsbehandling — realitetsbehandling af hovedsagen — uden betydning — grænser
Applications for interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Admissibility of the main application — Irrelevant — Limits
Annullationssøgsmål — akter, der kan være genstand for søgsmål — Parlamentets retsakter, der skal have retsvirkninger uden for Parlamentets interne område
Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Acts adopted by the European Parliament intended to produce legal effects outwith the Parliament itself