C-75/72
ECLI:EU:C:1972:110
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61972CO0075
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE COURT
30 NOVEMBER 1972 1
Letizia Perinciolo v Council of the European Communities
Case 75/72 R
In Case 75/72 R
Letizia PERNCIOLO, an official of the Council of the European Communities, represented by Emile Drappier, Advocate of the Cour d'Appel, Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 34b rue Philippe-II, applicant, v
Council of the European Communities, represented by Gonzague Lesort, Legal Adviser to the Secretariat General of the Council, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Emile Reuter, Legal Adviser to the Commission of the European Communities, 4 boulevard Royal, defendant,
Application for the suspension of the operation of the measure suspending payment of salary under Article 60 of the Staff Regulations of Officials,
The President of the First Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
makes the following
ORDER
Facts
Miss Letizia Perinciolo, an official in effect from 25 May 1972 to Directorate- Grade C 3 in the Secretariat-General of General A, the typing pool for the Italian the Council of the European Communities section, as a shorthand-typist. since 16 January 1964, was posted with She objected to this posting alleging, on tne
1 — Language of the Case: French.
JUDGMENT OF 30. 11. 1972 — CASE 75/72 R
basis of medical certificates, that she was appointing authority. unable to carry out the duties of a typist. By an application lodged at the Registry In reliance on the opinion given by its on 20 October 1972 and registered under medical advisers, the Council maintained No 75/72, she sought the annulment of the the posting. decisions contained in the letters of 20 In a letter of 20 June 1972 the Director of June 1972, 20 July 1972 and 28 August Administration of the Secretariat-General 1972. of the Council, having ascertained that In a separate document annexed to the Miss Perinciolo had not taken up duty application she further submitted an in the post to which she had been assigned, application for the adoption of an interim informed her that her absence was regarded order to the effect that the operation of the as unauthorized and that it would there measure suspending payment of her re fore entail, in accordance with the condi muneration should be suspended. tions set out in Article 60 of the Staff ay a document lodged ax the Registry on Regulations of Officials, the forfeiture of 14 November 1972 in accordance with her remuneration as from 3 July 1972. Article 83(1) of the Rules of Procedure of By a letter of 20 July 1972, the Secretary- the Court, the Council of the European General of the Council informed the ap Communities, the defendant, contended plicant that, apart from the period of sick that the Court should reject the application leave from 9 to 29 July 1972, payment of for the adoption of an interim order. her remuneration would continue to be suspended until she took up duty in the The parties submitted oral observations Italian section of the typing pool. at the hearing of the application for the On 9 October 1972 the applicant submitted adoption of an interim order on 28 a complaint against this measure to the November 1972.
Law
1 By her application for the adoption of an interim order, Miss Perinciolo asks the Court to order that the operation of the measure suspending payment of her remuneration which is the subject of the main action should be suspended.
2 The Council of the European Communities objects that this application is in admissible since the decision at issue was contained in a letter of 20 June 1972 from the Director of Administration of the Secretariat General of the Council and that
no complaint was made between that date and 20 September 1972 as required by Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
3 In addition it points out that the provisions of Article 60 of the Staff Regulations are mandatory and that the conditions for their application are fulfilled in this case.
4 Article 91 (4) of the Staff Regulations as amended by the Council on 30 June 1972 (OJ 1972, L 160) provides that an application for a stay of execution of a contested act must be made concurrently with the main action brought after submission of the complaint referred to in Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
5 In this case the main action to which the application for a stay of execution is joined is directed not only against the decision contained in the letter of 20 June 1972 from the Director of Administration of the Secretariat General of the Council
PERINCIOLO v COUNCIL
but also against the decision contained in the letter of 20 July 1972 from the Secretary General.
6 In respect of this latter decision, the complaint of 9 October 1972 was made within the period set out in Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
7 In examining the admissibility of an application for a suspension of the operation of a measure, the judge in the interim proceedings must not prejudge questions relating to the admissibility of the main action which are within the jurisdiction of the court hearing the main action.
8 Since the application for a stay of execution complies with the conditions set out in Article 91 (4) of the Staff Regulations, it is admissible.
9 Article 83 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court provides that the suspension of operation of a measure is subject to the existence of circumstances giving rise to urgency and grounds establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for.
10 The first paragraph of Article 60 of the Staff Regulations provides that the principal reason for forfeiture of remuneration is the absence of an official without authori
zation under the regulations or from the appointing authority.
11 The applicant justifies the absences in question by stating that she suffered from an invalidity which made her unfit to carry out the typist's duties involved in the post to which she had been assigned.
12 Whilst an official is entitled to seek recognition through administrative channels or if necessary before the Court of the invalidity from which he claims to suffer, this alleged invalidity does not constitute sufficient grounds for absence from work, except in cases where it is actually impossible to attend, without the agreement of the appointing authority.
13 The way in which an official fulfils the duties assigned to him may on the other hand constitute evidence useful to the appointing authority.
14 Therefore, since the applicant has not established the existence of grounds which prima facie justify her application for the adoption of an interim measure there are no grounds for ordering the suspension of operation of the measure suspending payment of her remuneration.
Costs
15 In the circumstances costs should be reserved.
JUDGMENT OF 30. 11. 1972 — CASE 75/72 R
On those grounds,
Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the parties; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, especially Articles 60, 90 and 91; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, especially Articles 83 and 95,
The President of the First Chamber, as an interim ruling, hereby orders:
1. The application for the suspension of operation of the measure suspending payment of the remuneration of Miss Letizia Perinciolo under Article 60 of the Staff Regulations is dismissed;
2. The costs are reserved.
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 30 November 1972.
A. Van Houtte R. Monaco
Registrar President of the First Chamber