C-15/63
ECLI:EU:C:1963:47
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61963CO0015
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR LAGRANGE — CASE 15/63
—
the claim for compensation should be dism sed;
—
the defendant should be ordered to pay the costs.
ORDER OF THE COURT 1 14 NOVEMBER 1963
In Case 15/63
Claude Lassalle , an official of the European Parliament,
applicant,
v
European Parliament,
defendant,
Application to intervene made by the Staff Committee of the European
Parliament, represented by the members of the Committee elected on 27 and 28 February 1963 and 5 March 1963, assisted by Ernest Arendt of the
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Cham bers of Mr Arendt, 6 rue W-Goerg n;
Issues of fact and of law
Whereas on 28 February 1963 Claude has a legitimate interest in the result of
Lassalle, an official of the European the original case in view of the effect
Parliament, applied to the Court of which the decisions will have on the
Justice for the annulment of Notice of careers of those officials whom it repre
Vacancy No 44 of 1 February 1963 at sents;
the Directorate-General the Parlia Whereas in the of the applicant original
Informa mentary Documentation and case supports the argument of the
tion Division; intervener; Whereas on 21 June 1963 the Staff Whereas the detendant in the original
Committee of the European Parliament case contends that the application is applied to intervene in this action in inadmissible on the ground in particular the conclusions the that, in order to be allowed to intervene, appli support of of
cant in the original case; the applicant should have the capacity Whereas the intervener maintains that to be a party in an original action whilst,
it has the capacity to bring proceedings as it is not a legal person, the Staff in order to protect the interests of the Committee could not bring an original staff which it represents; action; Whereas in this case the titan Committee
1 —
Language of the Case: French.
LASSALLE v PARLIAMENT
Grounds of judgment
Whereas in support of its application the intervener maintains that, by using the general word 'person', Articles 37 (EEC) and 38 (EAEC) of the Protocols on the Statute of the Court extend the right to intervene to all
parties representing an organized focus of legitimate interests;
Whereas there is no reason to believe that the authors of the EEC and EAEC Treaties wished to extend the opportunities to intervene to the point of
allowing intervention by entities lacking legal personality or even its basic aspects;
Whereas, in particular, these aspects include independence and responsi
bility even if limted;
Whereas, in this respect, the provision establishing the Staff Committee, namely Article 9 of the Staff Regulations, should be considered;
Whereas, within the context of the normal functions laid down by the
first three subparagraphs of paragraph (3) of that Article which are relevant to this case, manifestations of the will of the Committee are intended to be operative only within the institution;
Whereas in fact these functions are secondary to the activity of the instuion;
Whereas, therefore, in the exercise of its functions laid down in the first
three subparagraphs of Article 9 (3) of the Staff Regulations the nature of
the Staff Committee is that of an internal agency of its institution;
Whereas, therefore, it has no capacity to bring legal proceedings;
Whereas, therefore, its application to intervene must be dismissed as
inadmissible;
On those grounds,
Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to Article 173 of the EEC Treaty and Article 142 of the
Treaty of the EAEC;
OPINION OF MR LAGRANGE — CASE 15/63
Having regard to Articles 37 (EEC) and 38 (EAEC) of the Protocols on the Statute of the Court of Justice;
waving regard to the Staff Regulations; Having regard to Articles 69, 70 and 93 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities;
THE COURT
composed or: A. M. Donner, President, Ch. Hammes and A. Trabucchi
(Rapporteur) Presidents of Chambers, L. Delvaux, R. Rossi, R. Lecourt and W. Strauß, Judges
Advocate-General: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte
hereby orders:
1. The application to intervene is dismissed as inadmissible;
2. The costs of the intervention procedure shall be borne as
fol ows:
(a) in application of Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure the defendant in the original case shall bear its own costs;
(b) having been unsuccessful in their conclusions the
applicant in the original case and the intervener shall
each bear their own costs.
Luxembourg, 14 November 1963.
A. Van Houtte A. M. Donner
Registrar President
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL LAGRANGE 1 DELIVERED ON 5 NOVEMBER 1963
Mr President, laid down in Article 93 of the Rules of Members of the Court, Procedure but decided the case should
be argued by both parties in open court The fact that in this instance the Court shows the importance of the principle
was not content to follow the procedure in the question now before you, that is
1 — Translated from the French.