Súdny dvor Európskej únie·Rozsudok·12.12.1967

C-4/67

ECLI:EU:C:1967:51

Súd: Súdny dvor Európskej únie
IČS: 61967CJ0004
Zdroj: eur-lex.europa.eu ↗

JUDGMENTOFTHECOURT(FIRSTCHAMBER) 12DECEMBER19671

AnneMuller(neeCollignon) vCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities

Case4/67

Summary

1.Procedure—Periodsprescribedforinstitutingproceedings—Legalnature

2.Procedure—Applicationforannulment—Applicationfordamages—Close connexionbetweenthetwo—Inadmissibilityofapplicationforannulmentbring ingwithitinadmissibilityof applicationfordamages

1.Theperiodsprescribedforinstituting 2.Theinadmissibilityofarequestfor proceedingsaremandatoryinnature annulmentbringswithitthein andarenotsubjecttothediscretion admissibilityofaclaimfordamages ofthepartiesoroftheCourt. withwhichitiscloselyconnected.

InCase4/67

AnneMuller(neeCollignon)(wifeofJean-ClaudeMuller),anofficialof theCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities,residinginLuxembourg, assistedbyGastonThorn,AdvocateoftheLuxembourgBar,withanaddress forserviceinLuxembourgattheChambersofhisCounselat78Grand'rue,

applicant,

CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities,takingtheplaceoftheHigh AuthorityoftheEuropeanCoalandSteelCommunityunderArticle9ofthe Treatyof8April1965,representedbyitslegaladviser,PierreLamoureux, actingasAgent,withanaddressforserviceinLuxembourgat2placede Metz,

defendant,

Applicationfor:

—annulmentoftheappointmentmadefollowinginternalcompetition HA/INT/15/ Aannouncedon25February1966andinwhichtheappli canttookpart;

1—LanguageoftheCase:French.

JUDGMENTOF12.12.1967— CASE4/67

—anorderthataftertheannulmentofthesaidappointmentthedefendant shallappointtheapplicanttothesaidpostwithretroactiveeffect;

—anorderforthepaymentbythedefendanttotheapplicant,bywayof damages,ofasumassessedat30000FB,forthelossofincomesuffered bytheapplicantbyreasonofbeingdeniedthesaidpostandfortheinjury sufferedbyherbyreasonofthewrongfulactofthedefendantarisingout ofthecircumstancesinwhichitwasdecidednottoappointher;

—anorderforcostsagainstthedefendant,

THECOURT(FirstChamber)

composedof:A.M.Donner,PresidentofChamber(Judge-Rapporteur),R. MonacoandJ.MertensdeWilmars,Judges,

Advocate-General:K.Roemer Registrar:A.VanHoutte

givesthefollowing

JUDGMENT

Issuesoffactandoflaw

I — Summary of the facts 2.MrsMarliesGraf,43years. TheSelectionBoardfound,moreover, Thefactsinthepresentcasemaybe thatMrsGraf'cameveryclosetothe summarizedasfollows: standardachievedbythecandidatewho Theapplicant,whocompletedher wasplacedfirstandisalsoworthyof secondaryschooling(certificatein apostinCategoryA'. humanitésanciennes')inBelgium, Byanoteof14April1966,theDirector enteredtheserviceoftheHighAuthor GeneralforAdministrationandFinance ityinwhichon15November1965she forwardedtotheAdministrativeCom waspromotedtoGrade2ofCategory mitteethereportoftheSelection B.Shetookpartininternalcompetition Boardandrecommendedthatitadopt HA/INT/15/Ainstitutedon25Febru theBoard'sconclusions.Afterdiscus ary1966forapostofadministratorin sionsinwhichconflictingviewswere GradeA7.Initsreportof13April expressedthepreparatoryworkingparty 1966,theSelectionBoard,pursuantto oftheAdministrativeCommitteepro Article30oftheStaffRegulationsof posedunanimouslythattheconclusions OfficialsoftheEGSC,drewupthe oftheSelectionBoardbeadopted. followinglistofsuitablecandidates: TheDirectorateGeneralofAdministra 1.Mrs Anne Muller-Collignon,29 tionandFinance,byanoteof6July years(theapplicant), 1966addressedtothechefdecabinet

MULLERvCOMMISSION

ofthePresidentoftineHighAuthority, requestanumberoffactorswhich,in informedhimthattheAdministrative myview,nomatterwhattheactual Committee,supportingtheconclusions truthaboutthemmayhavebeen,had oftheSelectionBoardandtheproposal inanyeventnoinfluenceonthe oftheAdministration,recommendedthe resultsofthecompetition.TheSelec appointmentofMrsMuller. tionBoardputyoufirstonthelist. Byanoteor14July1966mesaid Itwasundernodutytodrawupany DirectorateGeneralinformedMrs kindoforderofmerit,sinceitstask Mullerthathernameappearedinthe undertheStaffRegulationsistosubmit listofsuitablecandidatesbutthatshe tomealistofsuitablecandidatesfrom hadnotbeenfinallyacceptedfor whichImakeanentirelyindependent appointmenttotheavailablepost. choice,inwhichIamguidedsolely Bydecisionof29July1966thePresi bytherequirementsoftheserviceand dentof'theHighAuthorityappointed bythequalifications,ability,vocational tothevacantpostMrsGrafwho experienceandmeritsofthecandidates appearedinthelistofsuitablecandi putforwardastheyappearfromthe datesandwhohadpreviouslybeen SelectionBoard'sreportandfromthe classifiedinGrade1ofCategoryB. personalfiles.Youwillobservethere On2September1966MrsMuller forethatyourpositionisnodifferent addressedarequesttothePresidentof fromthatofanyothercandidatewho, theHighAuthority.Initshestated, althoughhisnameisenteredonalist inparticular,thattheaccusationsmade ofsuitablecandidates,hasnotbeen againstherthatshehadpriorknow acceptedbytheappointingauthority. ledgeofthequestionsinthewritten Ithereforefailtoseehowyoucanhave testswasprejudicialtohergoodname sufferedanyharmtoyourcareerpros butshedidnotrequesttheannulment pectsorhowthefactthatyouhave oftheappointmentofMrsGraf. notbeenappointedcouldbeprejudicial On13October1966shesenttothe toyourgoodname.' Presidentthefollowingletter: Theapplicantlodgedthepresent 'WithreferencetotherequestwhichI applicationattheCourtRegistryon3 senttoyouon2September1966,I February1967. amtakingthelibertyofsubmittingto you,pursuanttoArticle90ofthe II — Conclusions of the StaffRegulationsofofficialsofthe parties ECSC,thepresentcomplaintonthe claimsraisedintheletterwhich TheapplicantclaimsthattheCourt accompaniedthatrequestinorderto should: protectmyrightsunderthesaid —'declaretheapplicationadmissible; regulations.Ihopeyouwillunderstand —declarethatithasjurisdictionto mypositionandtrustthatyouwill entertainit; notobjecttomyusingthisprocedure —takenotethattheapplicantreserves whichwillputmeinthepositionof therighttoformulate(inthefurther keepingopentheopportunitiesavailable toofficialsundertheRegulations.' courseoftheproceedings)further argumentsonfactandonlawwhich On17October1966thePresidentof shewasnotinapositiontoput theHighAuthoritysenttotheappli forwardwhenlodgingthepresent cantthefollowingnote: application; Re:yourrequestof2September —takenotethatshereserves.theright 1966. totendertheevidencemoreparti Youallegeinyourabove-mentioned cularlydescribedabove;

JUDGMENTOF12.12.1967— CASE4/67

—inanyeventordertherelevant ThedefendantcontendsthattheCourt departmentsofthedefendanttopro should: duceallrelevantadministrativedocu —'dismisstheapplicationinitsentirety mentsthecontentsofwhichare asinadmissibleandunfounded; unknowntotheapplicantandin —ordertheapplicanttopaythecosts particularthefollowing: savethoseincurredbytheHigh —thereportoftheSelectionBoard Authoritywhichitmustbearunder with'theresultofcompetition Article70oftheRulesofProcedure'. HA/INT/15/A, —thereasonsrelieduponforthe III—Submissionsofthe decisionnottoappointtheappli parties cant,

—thenotesandcorrespondencere Thesubmissionsofthepartiesmaybe latingtothiscompetition, summarizedasfollows: —allotheradministrativedocuments relatingtothecaseinquestion. A—Admissibility Astothesubstanceofthecase: Theapplicantalleges'thathercomplaint —declaretheapplicationwell-founded; of13October1966tothePresidentof —accordinglyannultheappointment theHighAuthorityreceivednoreply madebythedefendantonthebasis untilaftertheexpiryofthelimitation ofcompetitionHA/INT/15/A,on periodoftwomonthslaiddownby thegroundthattherewasnosuffi Article91(2)oftheStaffRegulations, thatisuntil14December1966,andthat cientreasonforrefusingtoappoint theapplicantwhenshewasclassed thetwomonths'periodforbringing firstinthecompetition,sincethe anappealagainsttheimplieddecision appointmentthereforeconstitutedan ofrejectionexpiredon14February abuseormisuseofpowers: 1967.Therefore,shesays,theappeal lodgedon3February1967wasmade —declarethatthedefendant'sappoint ingoodtimeandisadmissible. ingauthoritymustappointtheappli Sheexpressessurprisethatthedefen canttothepostforwhichshehad dantontheonehandiscontentto competed,andwithretroactiveeffect; leavethequestionofadmissibilityto —orderthedefendanttopaytothe bedecidedbytheCourt,andthis,she applicantbywayofdamagesasum says,amountstosayingthatitdoes assessedat30000BFforlossof notdisputetheadmissibilityofthe incomewhichshehassufferedby appeal,andontheotherhandrequests reasonofthedecisionnottoappoint theCourtinitsconclusionstodeclare her,insofarastheCourtdoesnot theappealinadmissible. seefittoawardtheapplicantex Thedefendantobservesthattheapplica aequoetbonofurtherdamagesora tionlodgedwiththeCourtcontains highersum; requestswhichwerenotexpressedin —reservetotheapplicantanyother therequestof2September1966,that righttowhichshemaybeentitled istosaytheannulmentoftheappoint andorderthedefendanttobearthe mentofMrsGraf,theappointment costsandinanyeventtogranttothe withretroactiveeffecttothepostin applicant,sofarasmaybenecessary, disputeanddamagesfortheharm thebenefitsaccruingunderArticles sufferedastheresultofthedecision 69,70,71,72and73oftheRules nottoappointher. ofProcedure'. Asregardstheletteraddressedbythe

MULLERvCOMMISSION

applicanttothePresidenton13October neverthelessitmaynotdestroythevery 1966,thedefendantallegesthatthat conceptofcompetitionbydeparting newrequestreferssolelytotherequest substantiallyfromtheresultofthecom of2September1966whichtheappli petitionwithoutseriousreasons.'(Rec. cantinnowayamendsorsupple 1966,p.826,eighthparagraph). ments. Thedefendantreplies,first,thatinthe Itgoesontoremarkthatalthoughthe firstparagraphofArticle30ofthe applicantallegesinherappealtothe StaffRegulationsandin'thepenultimate Courtthathercomplaintof13October paragraphofArticle5ofAnnexIIIto 1966didnotreceiveareplyshenone thesaidRegulationsthereisnopro thelessattachesasascheduletoher visionthatthelistofsuitablecandidates applicationthePresident'snoteinreply drawnupbytheSelectionBoard,must dated17October1966. includeanorderofmerit.Fromthis Inanyeventthedefendantleavesthe thedefendantconcludesthatthe questionofadmissibilityoftheappeal appointingauthority'sfreedomof tobedeterminedbytheCourt.Inso choicecannotberestrictedbyan doingitinnowayacknowledgesthe orderofmeritwhichhasnolegal admissibilityoftheappeal. foundation. Thedefendantgoesontoremarkthat B—Thesubstanceof thecase inthejudgmentintheSeriocasequoted 1.Actionfortheannulmentofthede abovebytheapplicanttheauthority cisionof29July1966toappoint hadchosenthetwelfthpersonona MrsGraf listwhichmoreoverwasareservelist andnotalistofsuitablecandidates. (a)Theapplicantallegesinthefirst Ontheotherhandinthepresentcase placethatundertheStaffRegulations thechoicehas'beenmadeofthesecond herplacingin'thecompetitiongaveher personinalistofsuitablecandidates therighttobechoseninpreferenceto theothercandidatesandsheaddsthat whichonlycontainedtwo'namesand, furthermore,theSelectionBoardhad theappointingauthoritysubstantially foundinitsreportof13April1966that departedfromtheresultofthecompeti MrsGrafwasveryclosetothestandard tionbyappointingMrsGrafwithout ofthecandidatewhowasrankedinthe anygoodreason,asshewasplaced firstposition. secondonthelistofsuitablecandidates; Accordingtothedefendant,theexpres theappointingauthoritytherebyin fringedArticles27,29and30ofthe sion'theresultof'thecompetition',used StaffRegulationsofOfficialsandin intheabove-mentionedjudgment,isnot tobeidentifiedwiththeorderofmerit viewofthistheappointmentshould beannulled. establishedby'theSelectionBoardon thebasisofalistofsuitablecandidates Insupportofherargumenttheappli butcoverstheresultsof thetestsof cantreliesonthejudgmentdelivered bytheCourt(FirstChamber)of15 thecandidates,theSelectionBoard's December1966inthecaseofSeriov evaluationsofthosetestsandanyother Commissionof theEAEC(Rec.1966, factorwhichthecompetitionmight p.824etseq.)andinparticular: bringtolight.Itarguesthereforethat, althoughit[theappointingauthority] inselectingMrsGraf,theauthority isentitledinmakingitsselectionsto didnotdepartsubstantiallyfromthe ignorethepreciseorderofmeritinthe resultof thecompetition. competitionforreasonswhichitisin Lastlythedefendantremarksthatin cumbentupontheadministrationto theSeriocasethechoicewascarried evaluateandjustifybeforetheCourt, outon'thebasisofareserverecruiting

JUDGMENTOF12.12.1967—CASE4/67

listwhichitselfhadbeendrawnupon suanttoArticle5ofAnnexHItothe thebasisofafirstchoicewhichthe StaffRegulations,andthisdeprives'the appointingauthorityhadmadefroma Commissionoftheopportunitytojus listofsuitablecandidatespreparedby tifyasubsequentrefusaltoappointthe aselectionboardfollowingacompeti candidatebyreasononlyofhisinsuffi tion.Accordinglythefreedomofchoice cientexperience'(thejudgmentinthe inmakingaselectionfromthisreserve Seriocase). recruitinglisthadtobelimitedwith Thedefendanttakestheviewthatthis particularseveritysinceithadalready lineofargumentisentirelymiscon beenexercisedonceonthebasisofthe ceivedsincetheappointmentofMrs listofsuitablecandidates.Ontheother Grafwasinnowaytheresultofthe handinthepresentcase,accordingto applicant'sinsufficientvocationalexperi thedefendant,theapplicant'scriticism encebutresultedfromthefactthat'the isdirectedagainstthefirstchoicemade SelectionBoarddidnot,inthemethod bytheappointingauthoritydirectly ofassessmentwhichitemployed,take fromthelistofsuitablecandidates accountofqualificationsoratleastof

drawnupbytheSelectionBoard. thevocationalexperienceofthesuccess (b)Thedefendanttakestheviewthat fulcandidates.Initsrejoinderitgoes inexercisingthechoicewhichiscon ontosaythattheapplicantisconfused ferreduponitbyArticle30of'the onthispoint'becausetheactionofthe StaffRegulationstheappointingauthor SelectionBoardtowhichtheapplicant ityhasotherfactorstoassessthanthose

refersconstitutesapreliminaryselection takenintoaccountbytheSelection whichmakesitpossibletoselectcan Boardwhichranksthecandidatessolely inaccordancewiththeresultsofwritten didateswhosequalificationssatisfycer tainminimumrequirementsorwhohave andoraltestsnamely:age,vocational equivalentexperiencebutdoesnot experience,previousassessmentsofcan necessarilydeterminethefinalresultsof didates,etc.Inthepresentcaseitwas theseotherfactorswhichledtothe thecompetition.Lastly,thedefendant considersdevoidofanylegalsignificance

choiceandappointmentofMrsGraf, theapplicant'sargumentthat,apart allthemoresosince,accordingtothe fromtheSelectionBoard,threeother SelectionBoard'sreport,shewasvery authoritiesinvolvedinthedecisionof closetotheapplicant'sstandard.In thisconnexionthedefendantcitesMrs nomination,thatistosay,theDirector ate-GeneralforAdministrationand Graf'sgreatermaturitybyreasonof herageandconsequentlyhergreaterex Finance,thepreparatoryworkingparty

oftheAdministrativeCommitteeand perienceandlongercareer;thefactthat justpriortothecompetitionhergrad theDirectorateofPersonnel,hadspoken ingwashigherandhersenioritywas infavourofappointingtheapplicant. greater;finallythatacomparisonbe Theseauthoritiesareinfactnothing tweenthevariousassessmentsmadeof morethanadministrativedepartments thetwocandidatesworksoutinfavour whohavenoparttoplayinthematter

ofMrsGraf. undertheStaffRegulations. Theapplicantobjectsthatbyrelyingon (c)Theapplicantstatesthatthesaid factorssuchastheseitispossiblefor appointmentwasmadethroughamis theappointingauthoritytodepartfrom use,ifnotindeedanabuse,ofpowers theresultofthecompetition.Sheargues sincepreferencewasgiventoMrsGraf thattheSelectionhasalreadycometo becausecertainaccusationsmadeagainst adecisionontheapplicant'squalifica theapplicant,inparticularthatshehad tionsanddegreeofexperiencebyad fraudulendyacquiredapriorknowledge mittinghertothecompetitionpur- ofthequestionsin'thewrittentest,had

MULLERvCOMMISSION

beenreportedtothePresidentofthe 2.Therequestforretroactiveappoint HighAuthority.Thispresumptionis ment

madeallthestrongerinthiscasesince TheapplicantclaimsthattheCourt amemberoftheSelectionBoardap shoulddeclarethatthedefendantmust pearstohavementionedtotheStaff appointtheapplicanttothedisputed Committeecertainallegedirregularities postwithretroactiveeffect. andsincemembersofthePresident's officeseemtohavediscussedthesemat Thedefendantobservesthat,according toawellestablishedprincipleofad ters.Thedefendantshouldhaveordered ministrativelawandtoconsistentcase- aninquiryinordertoestablishwhether lawbothundernationallawandunder thisaccusationwaswell-founded. Communitylaw,thepowerofappoint Thedefendantrepliesthatevenifthe mentisexclusivelyvestedintheexecu factsallegedbytheapplicantweretrue, tiveandthatthereforetheCourtcan thedecisionrelatingtotheappointment notplacetheexecutiveunderanobliga wouldnotassuchhavebeenillegal, tiontoappointaparticularperson. sincethechoiceofMrsGrafwasen tirelyjustifiedbyobjectivefactors.On 3.Theclaimfordamages theotherhandifthesaideventshad Inherapplication,theapplicantseeks actuallyoccurreditwouldhavebeen anawardofdamagesforthelossof necessaryforthePresidenttoattach incomewhichshehassufferedbyreason someimportancetothem.Howeveris ofthedecisionnottoappointher.She itnotimprobablethatthePresident allegesthatthecircumstancesinwhich shouldhaverefrainedfromopeningan itwasdecidednottoappointher inquirybutshouldhavecontentedhim amounttoawrongfulactonthepart selfwithnotappointingtheapplicant ofthedefendantandthatthesaidact whenshewouldnormallybesubjectto hasgivenrisetodamageaffording disciplinaryproceedingsandtosevere groundsforcompensation.Sheassesses sanctions?Theabsenceofanyinquiry thisdamageat30000BF. clearlyshowschatthePresidentdidnot Thedefendanttakestheviewthatthe givetheslightestcredittotheserum applicant'sconclusionsseekinganaward ours. ofdamagesfortheinjurysufferedby Theapplicantrepliesthatitiscontrary herbyreasonofthedecisionnotto tocommonsensetoarguethattheac appointhermustalsobedismissed, cusationswerenottobetakenseriously sincethedecisionnottoappointthe andthattheyweregivennocredit, applicantwasperfectlyinorder. sincenoinquirywasheld.Onlyanin quirycouldhavebroughttolightthe wholetruthabouttheallegedmiscon IV — Procedure duct.Shetakestheviewthatthefact

thatshewasnotappointedistanta Byletterof18October1967,theFirst mountinthesecircumstancestoasanc ChamberoftheCourtcalleduponthe tionlackinginanylegalfoundationand partiestosubmittheiroralobservations whichmustbeannulled. ontheadmissibilityoftheapplication. Initsrejoinder,thedefendantdenies Theoralsubmissionsofthepartieswere thattherewasasanction.Thetrue heardbytheChamberon15November natureofthemeasureadoptedfollow 1967. ingthecompetitionwastheappoint TheAdvocate-Generaldeliveredhis mentofMrsGrafinpreferencetothe opinionontheadmissibilityoftheap applicantonthebasisofobjective plicationatthehearingon21November reasons. 1967.

JUDGMENTOF12.12.1967—CASE4/67

Groundsofjudgment

Admissibility

Initspleadings,thedefendantontheonehandleavesthequestionofad missibilitytobedeterminedbytheCourtandontheotherhandattheend ofitsconclusionscontendsthattheapplicationisinadmissible.Duringthe oralprocedurethedefendantexplainedthisapparentcontradiction,saying that,althoughitregardedtheapplicationtobeinadmissible,itdidnotwish to'shelterbehindthesaidinadmissibility'buttoleavetheCourtfreetoraise thematterornot.

However,theperiodsprescribedforinstitutingproceedingsaremandatoryin natureandarenotsubjecttothediscretionofthepartiesoroftheCourt. Thepresentcaseisparticularlywellsuitedtodemonstratehowjustifiedthis ruleis,sincetheproceedingsconcernnotonlythedefendantinstitutionbut also,andpossiblytoagreaterdegree,theofficialwhoseappointmentisthe subject-matteroftheapplication.

Thepurposeoftheapplicationis,inthefirstplace,theannulmentofthe appointmentofMrsGrafandanorderthatthedefendantshouldappointthe applicantwithretroactiveeffecttothepostforwhichshehadcompeted.

Inthesecondplace,itspurposeisanawardofdamagesforthelossofincome whichtheapplicantissaidtohavesufferedbyreasonofthedecisionnotto appointher,asthecircumstancesinwhichthisdecisioncameaboutaresaid toamounttoawrongfulactoromissiononthepartofthedefendant institution.

Thefirstheadofclaimintheapplicationtakestheformofaclaimdirected againsttheimpliedrefusalresultingfromthefailureonthepartofthe PresidentoftheHighAuthoritytogiveareplytothecomplaintwhichissaid tohavebeenmadebytheapplicantinherletterof13October1966.

Thisletter,however,referstotherequestwhichtheapplicantmadeon2 September1966tothePresidentoftheHighAuthorityinwhichsheasked him'toexaminetowhatextentandbywhatmeansyouconsiderthatitwould bepossibletomakeupfortheinjurywhichIhavesufferedtomygoodname andtomycareerprospects'.Theletterof13Octoberdoesnomorethanstate thattherequestsmadeon2Septemberarenowtoberegardedasformally

MULLERvCOMMISSION

submittedwithinthemeaningofArticle90oftheStaffRegulationsof Officials.Theletterof13October1966virtuallycrossedwithaletterfrom thePresidentoftheHighAuthorityof17October1966whichfullyanswered therequestcontainedintheletterof2September1966towhichtheletterof 13October1966referred.Theclaimthattherequestthroughofficial channelsisonlycontainedintheletterof13October1966andthattheletter of17Octoberdoesnotreplytoitcannotthereforesucceed.

DuringtheoralprocedureCounselfortheapplicantagainreferredtocon fidentialdiscussionsandcorrespondencewhicharesaidtobecapableof provingthattheletterof17October1966didnotrepresentthefinalviews ofthePresidentoftheHighAuthority.However,suchstatementswhich, moreover,aredifficulttoverifybyreasonoftheirconfidentialnature,cannot betakenintoconsideration.Thustherewasnoimpliedrefusalinthepresent case.

Thus,evensupposingthattherequestthroughofficialchannelsdidindeed refertotheappointmentofMrsGrafandtothedecisionnottoappointthe applicant,whichtosaytheleastisopentoquestion,theperiodforbringing anappealagainstthemeasurescomplainedofexpired,atthelatest,three monthsafterthereplyof17October1966.Accordinglytheappealmadeon 3February1967isoutoftime.

Itremainstobeconsideredwhetherthefactthattheapplicationforannul menthasbeenfoundtobeinadmissibleentailstheinadmissibilityofthe claimfordamagesonthegroundofawrongfulactoromissionwhichforms partofthesaidapplication.

Thecloseconnexionbetweentheclaimfordamagesandtheapplicationfor annulmentisconfirmedbytheapplicant'sobservationthattheassessmentof thedamagedependsuponthedecisionoftheCourt,thatistosay,thedateof herappointmenttothepostwhichshesaysisrightfullyhers.

Itisclearfromthisthatthedamageisfoundedonthenon-appointmentof theapplicantandmoreexactlyontheappointmentofMrsGraf.Theappli cantcouldhaveavoidedthisdamagebycontestingthemeasuresinquestion ingoodtime.Itisapparentfromtheforegoingthatshehasfailedtodoso.

Inthesecircumstancesshecannotrepairthisomissionand,sotospeak,ac quiretheopportunityofbringinganewappealbymeansofaclaimfordamages.

JUDGMENTOF12.12.1967— CASE4/67

Accordinglytheinadmissibilityoftherequestforannulmentmustinevitably bringwithittheinadmissibilityoftheclaimfordamages.

Costs

Theappealisinadmissible.Theapplicantmustthereforebeorderedtobear herowncosts.Thedefendantmustbearitsowncostsinaccordancewiththe RulesofProcedure.

Onthosegrounds,

Uponreadingthepleadings; UponhearingthereportoftheJudge-Rapporteur; Uponhearingtheparties; UponhearingtheopinionoftheAdvocate-General; HavingregardtotheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanCoalandSteelCom munity,especiallyArticle40; HavingregardtotheProtocolontheStatuteoftheCourtofJusticeofthe EuropeanCoalandSteelCommunity; HavingregardtotheStaffRegulationsofOfficialsoftheEuropeanCoaland SteelCommunity,especiallyArticles90and91; HavingregardtotheRulesofProcedureoftheCourtofJusticeofthe EuropeanCommunities,especiallyArticles69and70;

THECOURT(FirstChamber)

hereby:

I. Dismissestheappealasinadmissible;

2.Orderstheapplicanttobearthecostsoftheproceedings,savethose incurredbythedefendant.

DonnerMonacoMertensdeWilmars

DeliveredinopencourtinLuxembourgon12December1967.

A.VanHoutte A.M.Donner

Registrar PresidentoftheFirstChamber