C-55/64
ECLI:EU:C:1965:113
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61964CJ0055
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (FIRST CHAMBER) <ap note>1</ap note> 17 NOVEMBER 1965
Jean Lens
v Court of Justice of the European Communities
Case 55/64
Summary
1. Officials — Appeals — Time-limits — Extension of time by means of a com
plaint within the meaning of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of officials
(Staff Regulations of officials of the ECSC, Article 91)
2. Officials Appeal against a previous decision Time- — measure confirming a —
limit for appeal against such decision expired — Loss of right to appeal
(Staff Regulations of officials of the ECSC, Article 91)
3. Procedure — Judgment granting annulment — Legal effects — Limited to the Judg parties and to the persons directly concerned by the measure annulled —
ment constituting a new fact — Concept
1. Cf. paragraph 5, summary in Case against that decision. 28/64, Rec. 1965, p. 308. Cf. paragraph 1, summary in Joined 2. A measure which merely confirms a Cases 50, 51, 53, 54 and 57/64. previous decision cannot revive an
already time-barred right of appeal 3. Cf. summary in Case 46/64.
In Case 55/64
JEAN LENS , a Principal Assistant in the Internal Services Department of the Administration of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, represented by Fernand Probst, advocate of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service at the latter's Chambers at 26 avenue de la Liberté, Luxembourg,
applicant,
v
COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , represented by its
Registrar, Albert Van Houtte, acting as Agent, with an address for service at the Court, 12 rue de la Côte-d'Eich, Luxembourg,
defendant,
1 — Language of the Case: French.
JUDGMENT OF 17. 11. 1965 — CASE 55/64
Application for the partial annulment and for the variation of a decision of 8 October 1964 by which the President of the Court refused to alter the step granted to the applicant by a regrading decision of 14 March 1963;
THE COURT (First Chamber)
composed of: L. Delvaux, President of Chamber, A. Trabucchi and R. Lecourt (Rapporteur), Judges,
Advocate-Gneral: K. Roemer Registra: H. J. Eversen
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Issues off fact and of law
I — Facts and procedure not grant the said request and that the
judgment in Case 70/63 could only By decision of the President of the have legal consequences 'in the case
Court taken on 14 March 1963, noti of the official concerned'.
fied to the party concerned on 2 April After receiving the said letter or 8
1963, Mr Jean Lens was appointed to October 1964, Mr Lens lodged an
the administration of the Court as a appeal, entered at the Registry under
Principal Assistant in Grade B1, Step No 55/64 on 5 December 1964, against 1 with effect from 1 January 1962. This the decision rejecting his request.
decision was taken as part of the By a resolution of the Court passed on
administrative reorganization rendered 17 September 1964 the Registrar, Mr necessary by the transition from the Albert Van Houtte, was appointed as
Staff Regulations of officials of the Agent for the purpose of representing ECSC to the Staff Regulations of the Court. officials of the EEC. The procedure followed the normal
By a request submitted on 29 September course. However, upon seeing the
1964 Mr Lens asked to be assigned to pleadings Court, which argued of the
Grade B1, Step 2, with effect from that the appeal was inadmissible, the 1 July 1960, pursuant to the principles applicant applied on 19 July 1965 'for set out in the judgment in Case 70/63 a decision on a preliminary objection of 7 July 1964, delivered in an action in accordance with Article 91 of the between another servant of the Court of Rules of Procedure'. Justice, namely Mr Collotti, and the In doing so the applicant sought to raise
said Court. two general questions. He suggested that By letter or 8 October 1964, the Presi the Court should make clear what was
dent of the Court stated that he could the time-limit for lodging an application
LENS v COURT OF JUSTICE
based on Article 90 of the Staff Regula Court accept the principle "of a reason
He in interests time-limit"
tions of officials. then suggested able the of the
that the Court should clarify the legal efficient running of the institutions and
effect of a judgment as regards persons of legal certainty. This principle is
directly 'concerned by the measure intended to prevent the legality of annulled', other than the parties to the administrative decisions being called in action. question indefinitely'. He expressed the view that it would The defendant further states that an
be preferable to dispose of these ques appeal through official channels which
tions before any discussions as to the contests an administrative decision taken substance', without however making any nearly a year and a half previously is definite request. obviously out of time and that such a The defendant left it to the discretion decision should be considered as defini of the Court to decide whether the tive in view of the need for sound 'questions' raised by the applicant in administration.
the said request should be dealt with. The applicant relies secondarily on the
Court decided of its own motion judgment in Case 70/63 as a new fact to hear the parties as to the admissibility enabling time to start running again.
of the application at the hearing on This judgment is of special relevance
6 October 1965, and the parties, who to the administration of the Court, were duly summoned for this purpose, which was the defendant in Case 70/63 were heard on that date. as it is in the present case. Therefore The Advocate-General delivered his by reason of this new fact the con
opinion at the hearing on 21 October tested decision ceases to be merely 1965. confirmatory, if indeed it were so, and constitutes a new decision. The defendant replies that the recent
II — Submissions and argu case-law of the Court (judgments in ments of the parties Cases 46/64 of 8 July and 50/64 of
14 July 1965) shows that the judgment A —
Admissibility in Case 70/63 was only concerned with the individual position of the applicant The applicant argues that since Article Collotti, and its legal effects cannot go
90 of the Staff Regulations of officials beyond that particular case. does not lay down any time-limit for the submission of a request of a com B — The substance of the case
plaint, an application directed against
the rejection of the said request or com The applicant requests that the prin
plaint need only be submitted within the ciples on which the judgment in Case period laid down in Article 91 (2) in 70/63 is based be applied. He main
order for it to be admissible, and this tains that a regrading based on a re
period starts to run from the date when assessment of the post which he the rejection takes place. occupies requires that he be given the
The defendant refers to the judgment same step in the new grade as the one
in Case 3/59 of 8 March 1960 and which he had in the old one. replies that, 'although it is true that The defendant relies upon the pro
Article 90 does not specifically lay down institu cedure generally followed by the a time-limit for submitting an appeal tions and upon the case-law of the
through official channels, the principles Court. It argues that the judgment in of law generally accepted in the Member Case 70/63 only applies to the personal
States as well as the case-law of the position of Mr Collotti.
JUDGMENT OF 17. 11. 1965 — CASE 55/64
III — Conclusions of the order the defendant to pay the costs'.
parities The defendant contends that the Court should:
The Court Mr Jean applicant claims that the 'dismiss the appeal made by should: Lens as inadmissible because it has declare that the present appeal is been lodged out of time; admissible and that it is well-founded; alternatively, should the appeal be
accordingly, vary the refusal contained accepted as admissible, dismiss it as
in the decision of the President of the unfounded in law; Court of 8 October 1964; order the applicant to Dear his own
hold that the grading of the applicant costs and expenses'.
as fixed on 14 March 1963 is erroneous; The two pleadings 'relating to the pro
hold that the applicant is to be classified cedural issue raised by the applicant in Grade B1, Step 2, with 18 months'
on the basis of Article 91 of the Rules
seniority in the step and with arrears of of Procedure' do not contain formal
pay back-dated to 1 January 1962; conclusions.
Grounds of judgment
On 5 December 1964 Mr Lens lodged an appeal against the decision of the President of the Court of 8 October 1964, rejecting his complaint of 29 September 1964. This decision related to the grading given to him by a decision of 14 March 1963, notified to him on 2 April 1963.
The admissibility of the application on a pro
cedural issue
During the course of the procedure, and by a document dated 19 July 1965 headed 'Application on a procedural issue pursuant to Article 91 of the Rules Procedure' of Mr Lens made it known to the Court that it seemed to him 'preferable to dispose ofbefore any discussions as to the "two questions"
substance of the appeal'. Since this document does not contain any formal
conclusions it seems simply to express a wish. It has therefore failed to
bring effectively a clearly stated application on a procedural issue before the Court, and it must be declared inadmissible.
The admissibility of the appeal
Under Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure the Court may at any time of
its own motion consider whether there exists any absolute bar to proceed
ing with a case. The admissibility of the appeal made by Mr Lens must therefore be examined from this point of view.
On 29 September 1964 the applicant submitted 'a request of complaint'
through official channels under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of officials against the disputed decision of 14 March 1963.
LENS v COURT OF JUSTICE
This request or complaint through official channels invited the appointing
authority to revoke the said decision and to regrade the applicant. retro-
actively on the basis of the principles stated in the grounds of the judgment in Case 70/63.
Under Article 91 (2) of the Staff Regulations of officials, appeals to the
Court shall be filed within three months beginning with the date of notifica
tion of the decision to the person concerned. Therefore a request or com
plaint through official channels which is not filed within the said period can
not suspend the effects of this time-limit.
In the present case, since notification of the decision was given to the
applicant on 2 April 1963, his request or complaint through official channels filed on 29 September 1964 was thus made almost eighteen months later, which means that it was made after the expiry of the period of three months laid down in Article 91 (2) of the Staff Regulations. Therefore the said re
quest or complaint could not suspend this limitation period.
It is not possible to find in the answer given by the appointing authority on 8 October 1964 to the request or complaint through official channels any factors which could enable the period referred to in Article 91 (2) of the Staff Regulations to start to run afresh. In fact this answer does no more
than confirm the decision of 14 March 1963. Therefore it cannot have caused the period for filing an appeal to the Court based on Article 91 of
the Staff Regulations to start to run afresh.
The applicant relies on the new fact constituted, according to him, by the judgment in Case 70/63 delivered by the Court on 7 July 1964 in a case between its administration and one of its servants, Mr Collotti. However, this judgment was delivered in a case to which the applicant was not a
party, and as regards him it cannot cause the period for lodging an appeal
to the Court to start to run afresh. In fact it matters little that the defendant in that case and the defendant in the present one are the same. This does not alter in any way the fact that the applicant was not directly concerned by the judgment delivered in the action brought by Mr Collotti.
Therefore the said judgment in Case 70/63 cannot constitute a new fact in the present case.
The appeal is therefore inadmissible.
Costs
The applicant has failed in his appeal.
OPINION OF MR ROEMER — CASE 55/64
Under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party shall
be ordered to pay the costs.
However, Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure provides that, in proceedings commenced by servants of the Communities, institutions shall bear their own costs.
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 the Staff Regulations of officials, especially Articles 90 and 91; Having regard to he Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, especially Articles 69 and 70,
THE COURT (First Chamber)
her by:
1. Dismisses the appeal in Case 55/64 as inadmissible;
2. (Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Delvaux Trabucchi Lecourt
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 17 November 1965.
H. J. Eversen L. Delvaux Assistant Registrar President of the First Chamber for the Registrar
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL ROEMER <ap note>1</ap note> DELIVERED ON 21 OCTOBER 1965
Mr President, Principal Assistant (Grade Bl in the
Members of the Court, Staff Regulations of officials) in the
Internal Services Department of the
Just as in Case 20/65, the applicant Administration of the Court. in the case upon which I am about to After the entry into force of the new
deliver my opinion is an official of the Staff Regulations of officials and the
Court. He performs the duties of a adoption of the definitions of posts by
1 — Translated from the German.