1 BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 16 AUGUST 1983 , M . F . AMMAN AND OTHER OFFICIALS OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BROUGHT AN ACTION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THEIR SALARY SLIPS FOR DECEMBER 1982 IN RESPECT OF SALARY ARREARS PAID PURSUANT TO COUNCIL REGULATION ( ECSC , EEC , EURATOM ) NO 3139/82 OF 22 NOVEMBER 1982 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , L 331 , OF 26.11.1982 , P . 1 ) AND , IN SO FAR AS IS NECESSARY , FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE EXPRESS OR IMPLIED DECISIONS REJECTING THE COMPLAINTS LODGED UNDER ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . THE APPLICANTS SEEK THE ANNULMENT OF THOSE MEASURES IN SO FAR AS THE SALARY ARREARS FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING ON 1 JULY 1980 WERE NOT INCREASED , IN SPITE OF THE LOSS OF PURCHASING POWER RESULTING FROM THE DELAY IN PAYMENT , BY DEFAULT INTEREST CALCULATED AT THE NORMAL RATE TO WHICH THEY CLAIM TO BE ENTITLED . THE APPLICANTS ALSO SEEK AN ORDER REQUIRING THE COUNCIL TO PAY THEM COMPENSATORY INTEREST ON ACCOUNT OF THE LOSS OF PURCHASING POWER .
2 ON 20 JANUARY 1981 THE COUNCIL ADOPTED REGULATION ( EURATOM , ECSC , EEC ) NO 187/81 ADJUSTING THE SALARIES AND PENSIONS OF OFFICIALS AND OTHER SERVANTS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND THE WEIGHTINGS APPLYING THERETO ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , L 21 , OF 24.1.1981 , P . 18 ), ACTING ON A PROPOSAL TO THAT EFFECT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION ON 9 DECEMBER 1980 .
3 IN PURSUANCE OF THAT REGULATION , ON 10 FEBRUARY 1981 THE COUNCIL ADOPTED REGULATION ( EURATOM , ECSC , EEC ) NO 397/81 FIXING THE TABLES OF SALARIES AND OTHER COMPONENTS OF REMUNERATION ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , L 46 , OF 19.2.1981 , P . 1 ).
4 ON 16 MARCH 1981 THE COMMISSION BROUGHT AN ACTION REQUESTING THE COURT TO DECLARE VOID REGULATION NO 187/81 AND ARTICLES 1 ( A ), 2 ( A ), 2 ( B ) AND THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 11 OF REGULATION NO 397/81 .
5 IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1982 IN CASE 59/81 ( COMMISSION V COUNCIL ( 1982 ) ECR 3329 ), THE COURT DECLARED VOID REGULATION NO 187/81 AND THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 397/81 .
6 IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THAT JUDGMENT , THE COUNCIL ADOPTED REGULATION NO 3139/82 OF 22 NOVEMBER 1982 , ACTING ON A PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMISSION DATED 29 OCTOBER 1982 .
7 THE COUNCIL , IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY , PROCEEDED TO CALCULATE AND PAY SALARY ARREARS PURSUANT TO THE AFORESAID REGULATION .
8 EACH OF THE APPLICANTS LODGED A STANDARD-FORM COMPLAINT UNDER ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS CONTENDING THAT ACCOUNT HAD TO BE TAKEN OF THE LOSS OF PURCHASING POWER DURING THE PERIOD IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ARREARS WERE PAID PURSUANT TO COUNCIL REGULATION NO 3139/82 AND CLAIMING DEFAULT INTEREST WHICH , IN THEIR VIEW , SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID TOGETHER WITH THOSE ARREARS .
9 THOSE COMPLAINTS WERE REJECTED BY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED DECISIONS , WHEREUPON THE APPLICANTS COMMENCED THESE PROCEEDINGS . ADMISSIBILITY
10 THE COUNCIL RAISES AN OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY AGAINST ONE OF THE APPLICANTS , LISBET HANSEN , WHO ALLEGEDLY BROUGHT AN ACTION BEFORE THE COURT WITHOUT HAVING SUBMITTED A COMPLAINT BEFOREHAND UNDER ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
11 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT THAT THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE COUNCIL IS WELL FOUNDED AND MUST BE UPHELD .
12 IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 22 OCTOBER 1975 IN CASE 9/75 ( MEYER-BURCKHARDT V COMMISSION ( 1975 ) ECR 1171 ), THAT A DISPUTE BETWEEN AN OFFICIAL AND THE INSTITUTION BY WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED , EVEN IF IT INVOLVES AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES , IS PURSUED , WHERE IT ORIGINATES IN THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYMENT BETWEEN THE PERSON CONCERNED AND THE INSTITUTION , UNDER ARTICLE 179 OF THE EEC TREATY AND ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . ACCORDINGLY , THE APPLICANTS HAVE LOCUS STANDI TO SUBMIT BOTH A CLAIM FOR ANNULMENT AND A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES PROVIDED THAT THEY SATISFY THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS , WHICH ARE THE SAME FOR BOTH MEANS OF REDRESS .
13 IT MUST BE NOTED THAT , IN THIS CASE , AS IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT , THE APPLICANTS CLAIMED ONLY DEFAULT INTEREST IN THEIR STANDARD COMPLAINTS AND NOT COMPENSATORY INTEREST WHICH THEY CLAIMED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THEIR APPLICATION TO THE COURT . CONSEQUENTLY , THEIR APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE IN SO FAR AS IT CONCERNS THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATORY INTEREST . SUBSTANCE
14 AS REGARDS THE SUBSTANCE , THE CASE RAISES CERTAIN QUESTIONS WHICH SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE FULL COURT .