C-20/65

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (FIRST CHAMBER) <ap note>1</ap note> 17 NOVEMBER 1965

Umberto Collotti

v Court of Justice of the European Communities

Case 20/65

Summary

Officials — Appeal against a measure confirming an earlier decision — Expiry of period for lodging appeal against that decision — Loss of right to appeal

COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , represented by its

Registrar, Albert Van Houtte, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Court, 12 rue de la Côte-d'Eich,

defendant,

Application for the annulment of the measure notified to the applicant by letter from the Registrar of the Court of Justice dated 18 February 1965 and for the revision of the applicant's retirement pension, on the basis of

his classification in Grade L/A 3, Step 8, as from 1 January 1962;

THE COURT (First Chamber)

the basis his salary during the last The facts may"

be summarized as fol­ three years of service amended on lows ■

the basis of head 2 above, with all

The application was lodged on 9 April the financial consequences arising 1965. It claims the annulment of the therefrom; measure notified to the applicant by the 4. Order the administration of the Court Registrar's letter No 46 965 of 18 to pay the costs and expenses'. 1965' February for the classification of B. In its application on a procedural the applicant in Grade L/A3, Step 8, issue the defendant contends that the as from 1 January 1962, and the cor­ Court should: responding adjustment of his retirement 'Give a decision on the preliminary ob­

pension. jection of inadmissibility raised by this Letter No 46 965, contested by the ap­

application, as a procedural issue, under plication, communicates to the applicant Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure; the detailed statement of his pension inadmis­ Declare the main application rights made up to 1 February 1965 sible and consequently dismiss it, and and informs him that the amount of order the applicant to pay his own his pension will be paid to him for the costs'. first time at the end of February. The administration's calculations are C. In his observations on the applica­

classification by adding an additional III — Submissions and

step to it. arguments of the

parties

II — Conclusions of the parties The submissions and arguments of the

be summarized as fol­ parties may A. In his application the applicant claims lows: that the Court should: A. The applicant alleges that the letter 1. 'Annul the measure communicated to of 18 February 1965 must be considered the applicant by the Registrar's letter as a final measure (acte définitif) adop­

No 46 965 of 18 February 1965; ted by the Court as an institution and 2. Order the administration of the Court that the Registrar acted as an agent of

1 January 1962, on the other hand the review my classification . . .' and 'it is grounds of that judgment clearly show not my intention hereby to make an

that a subsequent administrative amend­ administrative appeal or even a formal ment must be made to the applicant's complaint'.

classification by adding one step to it, It observes that the Court considered years'

either on the grounds of the two that no action should be taken on this appli­ seniority at the step which the letter (extract from the minutes of the cant had under the ECSC system or administrative of 15 December meeting under paragraph (4) (b) of Annex X to 1964). the Staff Regulations of officials of the It concludes that it arises from the fore­ ECSC. going that 'the knew his clas­ applicant The applicant concludes from this that sification and was satisfied with it'. the letter of 18 February 1965 is illegal C. (1) The applicant replies that the because it did not correctly apply the defendant's 'application on a procedural Staff Regulations, in particular Annex issue' is in fact a 'preliminary objection X in the in­ inadmissibility' thereto, accordance with on the ground of based terpretation which the Court gave them on Article 91 of the Rules of Pro­

in its judgment in the said Case 70/63. cedure. B. On 8 May 1965, the defendant In the official German text of the Rules lodged an application on a procedural of Procedure of the Court the words issue under Article 91 of the Rules of 'procedural issue' 'pre­ ('incident') and Procedure, contending that the main liminary objection'

tion determined by the judgment but only sible.

the amount of the pension, in accordance (2) The applicant next alleges that the with the Staff Regulations in force. defendant's application on a procedural

The defendant subsequently produces, issue is unfounded.

in a schedule to its application, a letter The dates of 7 July or 21 July 1964 of 9 December 1964 addressed by the cannot be used as points of departure applicant to the President of the Court. for a period of time which applies to It refers to the following pas ages: the bringing of an application. In fact

JUDGMENT OF 17. 11. 1965 — CASE 20/65

the documents sent on these dates were out reservation accepted for many sent without signature and without an months the salary of the grade assigned informa­ had this grade amended by accompanying letter, simply as to them and

cases involving officials who had with­ General delivered his opinion.

Grounds of judgment

I —

Admissibility

In its objection based on Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure, the defen­ dant contends that the main application is inadmissible because it is out of

time.

February 1965 containing the statement of the retirement pension, in fact aims at the revision of the applicant's classification as at 1 January 1962, as it arises from the operative part of the judgment of 7 July 1964 in Case 70/63. In this connexion the applicant invokes certain of the grounds of the said judgment.

Under Article 91 (2) of the Staff Regulations of officials, appeals shall be filed within three months of notification of the act adversely affecting the

COLLOTTI v COURT OF JUSTICE

official in question. In this instance the applicant received on 21 July 1964 from the administration of the Court a detailed statment of the sums to

which he was entitled both as regards the past and the future, on the basis of the judgment in Case 70/63. This statement showed clearly the con­

sequences which the administration drew from the said judgment.

II — Costs

The applicant has failed in his application.

Under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs. However, under Article 70 of the Rules of

Procedure, 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 Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities;

THE COURT (First Chamber)

hereby:

1. Dismisses Application 20 /65 as inadmissible;

2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

Delvaux Trabucchi Lecourt

Members of the Court, of the judgment: it amended the appli­

cant's classification in the scale of

After the entry into force of the new salaries of the Staff Regulations of

Staff Regulations, the applicant, then officials with retroactive effect from 1 theHead of our Language Department, January 1962 and it paid him the

considering that he had not been (21 classi­ corresponding arrears of salary fied in Regula­ 1964). accordance with these July tions, commenced an action against the Shortly after tendering his resignation

Court of Justice (Case 70/63) and (which Court, by letter of 4 the