C-33/68

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (FIRST CHAMBER) 30 OCTOBER 1969 <apnote>1</apnote>

Eva Rittweger v Commission of the European Communities

Case 33/68

In Case 33/68

Eva Rittweger , an official of the Commission of the European Com­ munities, represented by Alex Bonn, Advocate of the Luxembourg Bar,

applicant,

THE COURT (First Chamber)

composed of : R. Monaco, President of Chamber, A. M. Donner and J. Mertens de Wilmars (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

1 — Language of the Case: French.

JUDGMENT OF 30. 10. 1969 —CASE 33/68

I — Summary of the facts December 1965 and 21 April 1966. On 3 October 1968, the Directorate- The applicant has been in the service General for Personnel and Administra­ of the European Coal and Steel Com­ tion informed the applicant that the al­ munity as an official since 16 June 1963; lowance would no longer be paid, the by a decision of the Director of the expenses to be borne by her no longer Division for Personnel and Administra­ being regarded as heavy considering the tion dated 16 September 1954, taken on amount of her income. the basis of Articles 20 and 21(b) of the On 11 November 1968 that decision was Provisional Regulations on the position confirmed by the same Directorate- of the staff of the ECSC in force at General. that date, the mother of the applicant On 24 December 1968 the applicant was treated as if she were a dependent made the present application. child and the benefit of the relevant al­ On 13 March 1969 the Directorate- lowance was granted to the applicant. General for Personnel and Administra­ Later, that provision was replaced by tion informed the applicant that the al­ Article 5(c) of the General Regulations lowance would be continued and did so of the Community, drawn up by the in the following terms: Committee of Presidents, which entered into force at the same time as the Staff 'I have the honour to inform you that following a fresh examination of your Regulations of the Community, on 1 personal and official position I have July 1956. decided, in my capacity as the com­ That provision, by virtue or Article 96 petent authority in the matter, to of the Staff Regulations of 1962 and the continue for a further year as from last paragraph of Article 2 of Regulation 1 September 1969 the benefit of the No 259/68 of the Council of 29 Febru­ allowance for a dependent person in ary 1968 still governs the position of respect of your mother. the applicant as respects the payment It must be understood that you are of the allowance for a dependent per­ son other than a child. required to inform the administration The Directorate-General for Administra­ without delay of any change in the situation which has given rise to the tion and Finance periodically verified present decision. the position of the applicant to establish whether her mother could still be A certified copy of the formal decision treated as if she were a dependent child granting this allowance will be for­ in accordance with the relevant provis­ warded to you in the course of the ions of the regulations. next few days.' By a note of 7 June 1962, the applicant The decision mentioned, dated 17 April was informed that, having regard to her 1969, states that 'the allowance ... is income as a translator, the benefit of the granted until 31 August 1969, the date allowance in question had been with­ on which the position of Miss Rittweger drawn. will be re-examined in order to de­ Following an appeal through official termine whether the conditions for the channels, that benefit was continued by grant are still fulfilled'. a decision of the President of the High On 6 June 1969, with the proceedings Authority of 10 December 1964 and before the Court still pending, the further continued by decisions of 13 Director-General for Personnel and Ad-

continued only for one year, but indica­ The applicant puts forward further con­ ted that at the end of that year, her clusions in her reply claiming that the file would be re-examined by the Ad­ Court should: ministration, and that in principle the Declare that the fresh decision taken by allowance would be continued as long the defendant during the proceedings as the conditions for its payment were does not destroy the purpose of the fulfilled. application; Consequently reject the conclusions of the defendant; II — Conclusions of the Declare that there is reason to decide parties upon the application made by the ap­ plicant; The applicant claims that the Court Admit the conclusions of the applicant should: in the initial application; Admit the application as formulated and Reject as inadequate the offer of the declare it to be well founded; Commission to defray the costs incurred Annul or declare void the following dis­ by the applicant until the lodging of puted decisions: the statement of defence; (1) The decision by Mr van Gronsveld, Order the defendant to pay the entire Director-General for Personnel and costs of the proceedings. Administration or by the Director- The defendant in the rejoinder contends -ate-General for Personnel and Ad­ that the Court should: ministration, communicated to the (1) Declare that there is no reason to applicant on 3 October 1968, dis­ decide upon the application made by continuing the allowance for a de­ the applicant on 24 December 1968, pendent person; as it has no purpose; (2) The decision by the same Director- (2) Take note that the Commission is General or by the same Directorate- ready to defray the costs incurred by General communicated to the appli­ the applicant until the lodging of cant on 11 November 1968 confirm­ the statement of defence; ing the first decision; (3) Declare that the costs incurred by Declare that the allowance for a de­ the applicant after that date are to pendent person must continue to be be borne by her. paid to the applicant in respect of her mother Mrs Erna Rittweger; III — Submissions andargu­ Refer the case to the competent author­ ity; ments of the parties Order the defendant to pay the costs. 1. Object of the proceedings The defendant in its statement of de­ fence contends that the Court should: The defendant maintains that the pro­ (1) Declare that it is not necessary to ceedings have become without purpose; give judgment on the application according to the Commission it follows made by the applicant on 24 Decem­ from the fresh decision of the Director- ber 1968. as it has no purpose: General for Personnel and Administra­ (2) Take note that the Commission is tion of 13 March 1969, that the decis­ willing to defray the costs incurred ion of 3 October 1968, which is the

subject of the application, has been re included as part of the administrative scinded and superseded by a fresh de practice of regular re-examination of the cision which grants the allowance asked files. for. Again, according to the defendant, the The applicant replies that the new question of interpretation in accordance decision is not satisfactory to her; the with the regulations of the situation, a benefit of the allowance will henceforth change of which has to be envisaged, be temporary and limited in time, which can be decided only within the frame was not the case previously. work of an application for annulment. The applicant moreover has submitted As the application has become purpose to the Court of Justice the question less the Court cannot decide upon this whether in considering the justification question. for the allowance, it was the financial

adopted. According to that article, states the ap The period of twelve months indicated plicant, only the financial position of in the letter had the sole purpose of the dependent person, independently of settling the date for re-examining the that of the official obliged to maintain file, such a clause having been already him or. her, can be taken into considera included in previous decisions. tion in determining the right to the al This time-limit is purely for internal lowance. purposes and has not and cannot have This has been recognized by implica the purpose, without going beyond the tion by the various decisions of the ad field of the strict execution of the pro ministration continuing the allowance, visions of the regulations, of setting the despite the promotions obtained by the dies ad quern on the allowance granted applicant. to the applicant. The defendant considers that there is no The letter of 6 June 1969 sets out these reason to decide this question. facts and indicates that so long as the conditions for the payment of the allow

RITTWEGER v COMMISSION

the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and The public hearing took place on 17 after hearing the Advocate-General de­ September 1969. cided to open the oral procedure with­ The Advocate-General delivered his out a preparatory inquiry. opinion on 14 October 1969.

Grounds of judgment 1 The application, based upon Article 91 of the Staff Regulations of the European Communities, seeks on the one hand the annulment of two de­ cisions dated 3 October and 11 November 1968 communicating to the appli­ cant and afterwards confirming that the allowance for a dependent person provided for, as far as she is concerned, by Article 5 of the General Regulations of the ECSC which entered into force on 1 July 1956 and were continued by Article 96 of the ECSC Staff Regulations and Article 2 of Regulation No 259/68, was withdrawn from her, and on the other hand a declaration that this allowance: 'must continue to be paid to the applicant in respect of her mother'.

2 The applicant has benefited since 1954 from the abovementioned allowance, which the administration granted her so long as the conditions for its pay­ ment were fulfilled; an annual check on this was to be kept by the administration.

3 These conditions are laid down by Article 5(c) of the General Regulations mentioned above under which the maintenance of the dependent person must involve the servant concerned in heavy expenditure.

4 The defendant considered that, having regard to the income of the applicant, this expenditure could no longer be regarded as sufficiently heavy to justify the continuance of the allowance and withdrew it by the decision of 3 October 1968.

Costs

10 Under Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice the costs incurred by institutions in applications by servants of the Communities shall be borne by the latter, without prejudice to the provisions of the second sub­ paragraph of Article 69(3) of those rules.

1 The defendant has agreed in its statement of defence to bear the costs of the proceedings incurred by the applicant until the lodging of its statement.

12 However it was only in the schedule to its rejoinder that it produced a staff memorandum of 6 June 1969 containing the necessary details on the scope of its decision withdrawing the disputed measures.

13 Under the second subparagraph of Article 69(3) mentioned above, the Court may order even a successful party to bear the costs which that party has caused the opposite party to incur.

14 It is appropriate to order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible for lack of purpose;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Moncao Donner Mertens de Wilmars

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 30 October 1969.

A. Van Houtte R. Monaco

Registrar President of the First Chamber of the Court