C-47/65

meaning of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of officials Bar to right of —

action

(Staff Regulations of officials of the EAEC, Article 91)

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

(Staff Regulations of officials of the EAEC, Article 91)

3. Procedure — Judgment granting annulment — Legal effects — Limited to the Judg­ parties and to the persons directly concerned by the measure annulled —

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , represented by its Secretary-General, Hans Robert Nord, and by Jacques Fayaud, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Secretariat-General of the European Parliament, 19a rue Beaumont, defendant,

Application for the grant of a specific step on classification,

1 — Language of the Case: French.

JUDGMENT OF 14. 12. 1965 — CASE 47/65

THE COURT (Second Chamber)

(Rappor­ composed Strauß, President of Chamber, A. M. of: W. Donner

language service the European Par­ of

liament. On 20 December 1962 she was II — Conclusions of the established in Grade L/A4, Step 2, with parties effect from 1 January 1962. On 30 March 1965 she submitted a complaint In her application, the applicant claims under Article 90 of the Staff Regula­ that the Court should: tions of officials with the object of ob­

'declare that the present application is taining a revision of her administrative

position. admissible;

When on 9 April she received a nega­ rule also that it is well founded; e

consequently, rule that the applicant's tive reply, the applicant made the pres­

47/65 salary as from 1 January 1962; to Cases 42/65, 43/65 and

45/65 for order the defendant to pay the costs'. the purposes of procedure

and of the decision on admissibility. In her observations on the examination

By order of 4 October 1965, the order of admissibility, undertaken of its own

joining Case 47/65 to Cases 42/65, motion by the Second Chamber of the

43/65 and 45/65 was rescinded. Court, the applicant claims that the

III — Submissions and and classification appointment thereby arguments o­n become decisions common to the institu­

admissibility tions and that, consequently, each of institu­ them directly concerns all the

The applicant claims that appeals are tions.

admissible under Article 90 of the Staff Following the judgment in the Collotti Regulations of officials, as that provision be­ case, fresh consultations took place

does not lay down any period of limita­ tween the institutions and, yet again, a tion. common decision was adopted capable Further, the judgment in the Collotti of identical application in individual case can be considered to be a new cases in the various institutions. factor as a result of which the decision Therefore, it is alleged, one can deduce taken on the applicant's complaint is therefrom that all the institutions were

be fresh decision. dis­ to considered as a direcdy affected by the measure

annulled'. rect, good faith requires that the right

In this case, on the entry into force of of appeal against these decisions may the new Staff Regulations the method be revived, even after the expiry of the

of integrating servants was adopted by three months following the notification

common agreement between all the of the said decisions. institutions, which fact guaranteed uni­ During both the written and oral pro­

formity in individual appointments. One cedures the defendant relied on the

can therefore maintain, according to the wisdom of the Court with regard to the

Under Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations of officials appeals to the Court must be filed within a period of three months from the date of notification to the person concerned of the decision in dispute.

JUDGMENT OF 14. 12. 1965 — CASE 47/65

Therefore a request or complaint through official channels which is not made within this period cannot revive the time-limit.

In this instance the decision was notified to the applicant on 20 December 1962 and her complaint through official channels, which was submitted on

30 March 1965, thus occurred more than two years later, that is, more than two years after the expiry of the period of three months laid down in Article

91(2) of the Staff Regulations.

by the judgment of the Court of 7 July 1964 in Case 70/63, a case which one of its servants, Mr Collotti, brought against its administration.

The only persons concerned by the legal effects of a judgment of the Court annulling a measure by an institution are the parties to the action and taken

those persons direcdy affected by the measure which is annulled. Such a

judgment can only constitute a new factor and cause the periods for bringing appeals to start to run afresh as regards those parties and persons.

As this is not the case in this instance the application is inadmissible.

Costs

Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials, especially Articles 90 and91; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, especially Articles 69 and 70;

THE COURT (Second Chamber)

hereby:

I. Dismisses Application 47/65 as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs of the action, with the excep­

tion of those incurred bv the defendant institution.