C-54/75
ECLI:EU:C:1976:127
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61975CJ0054
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 29 SEPTEMBER 1976 1
Raphaël de Dapper and Others v European Parliament
Case 54/75
Summary
Community institutions — Officials — Representation — Staff Committees — Election — Legality — Duties of the institutions — Review by the Court — Legal remedies — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice (Staff Regulations of Officials, Article 9 (2) 90, 91 and Annex II)
It follows from Article 9 (2) of the Staff Thus the Court has jurisdiction in Regulations of Officials and, in general, electoral disputes concerning the from the power of organization which appointment of Staff Committees on the each institution exercises within its own basis of the provisions relating to sphere of jurisdiction and from its duty applications by officials which are laid to ensure that officials have complete down by the Staff Regulations in freedom to choose their representatives pursuance of Article 179 of the EEC in accordance with democratic rules that Treaty. Within this framework the Court institutions are not only entitled to is required to examine, in accordance intervene of their own volition when with its general task under Article 164 of they have doubts as to the legality of the EEC Treaty and the parallel elections to the Staff Committee but provisions of the ECSC and EAEC must in addition settle complaints which Treaties all objections raised against may be submitted to them in this elections having regard to the rules connexion under the procedure laid relating to freedom and democracy down by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff common to all the Member States in Regulations. matters of electoral law.
In Case 54/75
RAPHAËL DE DAPPER, residing in Luxembourg,
CORNELIS VOLGER, residing in Heffingen, and
LEON BODSON, residing in Luxembourg,
Officials of the European Parliament, represented by Victor Biel, Advocate at the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr Biel, 18a, rue des Glacis, applicants,
1 — Language of the Case: French.
JUDGMENT OF 29. 9. 1976 -CASE 54/75
V
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, represented by its Secretary-General, H. R. Nord, acting as Agent, assisted by Alex Bonn, Advocate at the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr Bonn, 22 Côte d'Eich, defendant,
Application at this stage of the procedure for a decision concerning the jurisdiction of the court of Justice and the admissibility of the application which is for the annulment of the elections of 18 March 1975 to the Staff
Committee of the European Parliament,
THE COURT
composed of: R. Lecourt, President, H. Kutscher and A. O'Keeffe, Presidents of Chambers, A.M. Donner, J. Mertens de Wilmars, P. Pescatore, M. Sørensen, Lord Mackenzie Stuart and F. Capotorti, Judges,
Advocate-General: H. Mayras Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Facts
The facts of the case, the procedure and in connexion with the results of the the submissions and arguments of the election. parties with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the On 4 April 1975 ten officials of the application may be summarized as European Parliament, including the three follows: applicants, submitted a complaint to the Chairman of the Committee of Tellers asserting that the elections were unlawful I — Statement of the facts and improper and claiming that they should be annulled. On 18 March 1975 elections for the Staff Committee were held at the European On 29 April 1975 the Committee of Parliament. Tellers stated in a written communication to the staff that at its On 19 March 1975 the Committee of meeting on 22 April it had 'considered Tellers issued a written communication that the election procedure was not
DE DAPPER v PARLIAMENT
unlawful and that such instances of verify the regularity and lawfulness of the failure to comply with the rules as it had elections to the Staff Committee of the been able to detect did not affect the Parliament held on 18 March 1975 and validity of the elections'; consequently it to ascertain and confirm the existence of found unanimously that the elections of such irregularities and consequently to 18 March 1975 were valid and confirmed annul the election proceedings. the results. On the same date, 16 June 1975, the On 5 May 1975 ten officials of the applicants lodged an application under European Parliament, including the Article 91 (4) of the Staff Regulations of applicants, submitted a complaint to the Officials for the adoption of interim President of the Parliament concerning measures. In particular they claimed that the Court should: the elections to the Staff Committee held — Rule that the Staff Committee which on 18 March 1975 requesting him to declare them void. This application was has just taken up its duties must submitted through administrative refrain from acting pending a decision on the substance of the case channels to the President of the European Parliament on 13, 14 and 15 on the basis of the originating May 1975. application lodged on the same date; — Rule that the Chairman of the
On 30 June 1975 the President of the Committee of Tellers must deposit Parliament informed the signatories of the voting papers at present in his the complaint that the mathematical custody at the Court Registry for any study entitled 'Statistical Analysis of the necessary scrutiny and for checking Election Results' which was annexed to during the proceedings; — Rule that the Parliament is the complaint did not seem adequate and he requested them to 'provide specific responsible for suspending the information (witnesses' statements or Committee presently holding office other information) as to the facts which and for depositing the voting papers. enable you to state that one person completed in advance and on behalf of On 26 June 1975 the European Parliament submitted its observations on his colleagues between thirty and forty voting papers. This indeed appears to me the procedural issues leaving the a decisive factor with regard to the admissibility and the substance of the decision which I must take. application to the Court.
By an order of 2 July 1975 the President Following an exchange of letters and of the Second Chamber as an interim after hearing five witnesses on 25 decision, after the parties had presented September 1975 the President of the oral argument on the same day, European Parliament by a decision of 7 dismissed the application for the October 1975 which was notified to one suspension of the Staff Committee of the of the applicants by a letter of 10 European Parliament, ordered the voting October rejected the complaint against papers to be deposited at the Court the elections to the Staff Committee held Registry and reserved the costs. on 18 March 1975. On 14 July 1975 the President of the Second Chamber, in pursuance of the II — Procedure second sentence of Article 91 (4) of the Staff Regulations of Officials, suspended On 16 June 1975 the three applicants proceedings in the main action until lodged the present application. The such time as an express or implied application was directed against the decision had been taken rejecting the failure of the appointing authority to applicants' complaint of 5 May 1975.
JUDGMENT OF 29. 9. 1976 -CASE 54/75
On 10 November 1975 the European upon the Court of Justice a general Parliament informed the Court that on jurisdiction with regard to any dispute 10 October the applicants had been between the Community or one of the notified of the decision of the President Community institutions and the staff of the Parliament of 7 October. covered by the Staff Regulations. This general jurisdiction and the jurisdiction The written procedure was resumed and with regard to the institutions can be followed its normal course. subject to no restrictions other than those following from the 'limits and ... By an order of 6 May 1976 the Second conditions laid down in the Staff Chamber decided pursuant to Article 95 Regulations'. No limitation on the (3) of the Rules of Procedure to refer the jurisdiction of the Court has been case to the Full Court. provided with regard to the election of staff representatives. The Court, having heard the views of the Adcocate-General, decided to open the Furthermore neither Article 9 nor Annex oral procedure without a preparatory II to the Staff Regulations of Officials inquiry. concerning the Staff Committee limits the general jurisdiction conferred upon Nevertheless the Court requested the the Court by the Treaty. parties to reply in writing before the opening of the oral procedure to two The Staff Regulations of Officials confer questions on the jurisdiction of the Court upon each institution the power to in electoral disputes. determine the Composition and procedure of the Staff Committee. The The submissions of the parties institution thus has the right and the concerning the questions of the duty to ensure that the Staff Committee jurisdiction of the Court and the is properly constituted; it is obliged to admissibility of the application were intervene if it appears that one of the heard on 13 July 1976. conditions laid down in Annex II regarding the validity of the elections has The Advocate-General delivered his not been fulfilled. opinion on the same questions at the hearing on 22 September 1976. This finding cannot be affected by the third paragraph of Rule 6 of the Rules on the Representation of the Staff of the III — Submissions and argu European Parliament's Secretariat ments of the parties according to which the Committee of concerning the jurisdiction Tellers alone shall be competent to of the Court and the decide all disputes concerning elections admissibility of the to the Staff Committee. This provision application only applies internally with regard to the representation itself; it does not relieve A — The jurisdiction of the Court the institution of its own rights and duties or take away the Court's The applicants observe that under jurisdiction. Article 179 of the EEC Treaty the Court of Justice has jurisdiction in any dispute The Court also has jurisdiction in the between the Community and its servants present case under Articles 90 and 91 of within the limits and under the the Staff Regulations of Officials. conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations or the Conditions of The European Parliament also considers Employment. This provision confers that the Court of Justice has jurisdiction
DE DAPPER v PARLIAMENT
under Article 179 of the EEC Treaty and In borderline cases arising in disputes under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff with staff the Court of Justice has Regulations of Officials. On the basis of moreover never hesitated to uphold its the provisions of the Staff Regulations own jurisdiction. Finally it must be concerning the Staff Committee, in emphasized that if the Court of Justice particular Article 9 and Annex II, and of does not have jurisdiction in this field no the institution's power of organization court, national or other has power to which also relates to internal bodies of settle electoral disputes regarding the the institutions such as the Staff appointment of the Staff Committee. Committee, the European Parliament must ensure that elections to the Staff It is necessary therefore to consider that Committee are held in accordance with the Court of Justice has jurisdiction over the provisions of the Staff Regulations. It electoral disputes concerning the must in particular intervene if the appointment of the Staff Committee. constitution and functioning of the Staff Committee seem adversely affected by B — The admissibility of the failure to observe the rules of the Staff application Regulations to which the Committee is subject. On this assumption the The applicants reply that Mr De Dapper, applicants are thus entitled to invoke the who was elected, and the two other institution's failure to act when it is applicants are all adversely affected by an alleged that there has been an irregularity election which is invalid because of in the election procedure. illegalities and irregularities.
This alleged failure may also be invoked In fact the two applicants other than Mr by any person covered by the Staff De Dapper were not elected but, Regulations on the basis of the according to the mathematical analyses administration's duty of protection and of the poll they would have had a good chance in the election if it had been of assistance. This duty, which is established by several provisions of the lawfully held. Staff Regulations and is set out in several Mr De Dapper's interest was not only to national laws, may be stated as a general win his election but also to obtain the principle of the law relating to the public number of votes corresponding to the service. In view of the many important number of officials who support him and powers of the Staff Committee the his aims with regard to union matters. appointing authority is under a duty to The number of votes obtained by a ensure that each official is represented by candidate is not a matter of indifference members of a Staff Committee who have particularly as the confidence of the staff been appointed as a result of lawfully union which he represents on the Staff conducted elections. Committee corresponds more or less to the number of votes cast in his favour. The provision of the electoral rules conferring upon the Committee of On any view all members of the staff are Tellers power to decide disputes in adversely affected by irregularities and connexion with elections to the Staff illegalities which invalidate the poll and Committee is clearly limited to internal which mean that the committee so disputes. This provision cannot exlude elected is not really representative of the either the intervention of the institution, staff as a whole. where the election procedure is in breach of the provisions of the Staff Regulations, The European Parliament observes that or any application to the appointing only measures directly affecting the authority and ultimately to the Court of rights of the applicant can be considered Justice. as having an adverse effect.
JUDGMENT OF 29. 9. 1976 -CASE 54/75
Two of the applicants who were received, is less favourable than it should candidates for the Staff Committee were be. The applicant's reasoning on this not elected. If the irregularities of which point is scarcely open to dispute; his they complain had not occurred they application must thus be considered as would certainly have had a chance of admissible. election. This finding constitutes a sufficient basis for conceding that the Moreover certain national courts of the contested measure adversely affects them. Member States recognize the positive right of any elector to contest the validity On the other hand Mr De Dapper, one of elections. of the applicants, was elected. His only complaint is that, as a result of the said In those circumstances it must be irregularities, he obtained fewer votes so conceded that the three applicants are that his position, in accordance with the entitled to submit the present number of votes which he actually application.
Law
1 The application is for the annulment of the elections to the Staff Committee of the European Parliament held on 18 March 1975 because of alleged irregularities in the election proceedings.
2 By an order of 6 May 1976 the Second Chamber referred the case to the Full Court in view of the questions of principle involved in the admissibility of the application, in the absence of any express provision in the Staff Regulations concerning electoral disputes with regard to the appointment of staff committees.
3 In order to settle that question the Court requested the parties to give fuller details of their views on the jurisdiction of the Court in this sphere and to state how an application of this nature can come within the framework of the procedures laid down by the Staff Regulations.
4 In reply to the questions put the Parliament stated that it considers that the institutions have the right and duty to ensure the regularity of elections to the Staff Committee and to intervene if the electoral rules have not been observed.
DE DAPPER v PARLIAMENT
5 According to the Parliament that right and duty are based both on the express provisions of the Staff Regulations and on the general power of organization enjoyed within its sphere by each institution and on its duty to protect and assist its officials and other servants.
6 Finally the Parliament further states that if the Court finds that the contested elections were irregular it will take appropriate steps to ensure execution of the judgment of the Court and that it considers that it has all the powers necessary for this purpose.
7 For their part the applicants, for similar reasons, have recognized the jurisdiction of the Court.
8 Since in the Staff Regulations there are no express provisions on the review of elections to the Staff Committee the question whether the Court of Justice has jurisdiction in this sphere must be settled within the framework of the general provisions on applications by officials having regard to the position of the Staff Committee under the Staff Regulations.
9 Under Article 9 of the Staff Regulations a staff committee is to be set up within each institution.
10 In accordance with Article 9 (2) the composition and procedure of this body shall be determined by each institution in accordance with the provisions of Annex II to the Staff Regulations.
11 Under Article 9 (3) the general task of the Staff Committee is to represent the general interests of the staff vis-à-vis their institution, maintain continuous contact between the institution and the staff and contribute to the smooth
running of the service.
12 Within the context of this general task the Staff Committee plays a very important part in the administration of the institutions.
13 In particular it participates in the constitution and functioning of the various internal bodies of the institutions such as the Joint Committee, selection
JUDGMENT OF 29. 9. 1976 -CASE 54/75
boards for competitions, Disciplinary Boards and social welfare bodies set up by the institution in the interests of its staff as well as in the activities of the Staff Regulations Committee in relations between the institutions.
14 Under Article 1 of Annex II every official in the institution together with the servants referred to in the first paragraph of Article 7 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants shall be entitled to vote in elections and stand for election to the Staff Committees.
15 Although Article 1 of. Annex II leaves it to the general meetings of staff of the various institutions to lay down the manner in which the elections are held it nevertheless imposes certain specific rules in this connexion.
16 Thus the second paragraph of Article 1 provides that election shall be by secret ballot, the fourth paragraph provides that the election rules must be fixed in such a way that the various categories of officials are represented whilst the fifth paragraph provides that elections shall be valid only if two thirds of the officials entitled to vote take part and that if this proportion is not attained a second vote shall be held.
17 Even though these provisions are incomplete, taken as a whole they show that they were intended to ensure that the Staff Committee is representative.
18 Such a representative character can only be ensured by means of elections the legality of which is guaranteed at all stages of the election proceedings.
19 These findings however leave open the question of the legal remedies by which the legality of elections may be reviewed.
20 Since the Staff Committee is an internal body of its institution and is closely associated with the preparation of measures taken by the institution relating to the Staff Regulations and personnel management, review by the Court can only be envisaged within the framework of applications directed against the institution concerned.
DE DAPPER v PARLIAMENT
21 The existence of such an application depends upon whether the institution has the right and the duty to intervene if the elections to the Staff Committee are open to dispute.
22 Such a duty in fact follows from Article 9 (2) of the Staff Regulations and, in general, from the power of organization which each institution exercises within its own sphere of jurisdiction and from its duty to ensure that officials have complete freedom to choose their representatives in accordance with democratic rules.
23 It follows from this that institutions are not only entitled to intervene of their own volition when they have doubts as to the legality of elections to the Staff Committee but must in addition settle complaints which may be submitted to them in this connexion under the procedure laid down by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations.
24 Thus the Court has jurisdiction in electoral disputes concerning the appointment of Staff Committees on the basis of the provisions relating to applications by officials which are laid down by the Staff Regulations in pursuance of Article 179 of the EEC Treaty.
25 Within this framework the Court is required to examine, in accordance with its general task under Article 164 of the EEC Treaty and the parallel provisions of the ECSC and EAEC Treaties, all objections raised against elections having regard to the rules relating to freedom and democracy common to all the Member States in matters of electoral law.
26 The admissibility of the application must be appraised according to the foregoing principles.
27 It cannot be doubted that the applicants, who were at the same time voters and candidates in the contested elections, are qualified to bring their action and have a legal interest in doing so.
28 With regard to the formalities and periods for lodging applications prescribed by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations it is clear from the file that the
JUDGMENT OF 29. 9. 1976 -CASE 54/75
elections in question were held on 18 March 1975 and that the applicants submitted an initial complaint to the Chairman of the Committee of Tellers as early as 4 April 1975.
29 When the Chairman dismissed their complaint they drew up a complaint on 5 May 1975 to the President of the European Parliament which was notified in the course of 13, 14 and 15 May.
30 The application to the Court accompanied by an application for the adoption of interim measures was lodged on 16 June 1975 in accordance with the provisions of Article 91 (4) of the Staff Regulations.
31 Subsequently the President of the European Parliament conducted an investigation which led him to notify the applicants by a letter of 7 October that he considered their complaint unfounded in the light of the examination he had made.
32 In those circumstances the admissibility of the application cannot be contested with regard to the requirements as to form and as to the period for lodging an application prescribed by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations.
33 The case must be remitted to the Chamber which has jurisdiction for the purposes of examination and a decision on the substance.
Costs
34 The costs must be reserved.
On those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby:
1. Declares the application admissible;
DE DAPPER v PARLIAMENT
2. Orders the case to be remitted to the Second Chamber for the purposes of examination and a decision on the substance; 3. Reserves the costs.
Lecourt Kutscher O'Keeffe Donner Mertens de Wilmars
Pescatore Sørensen Mackenzie Stuart Capotorti
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 29 September 1976.
A. Van Houtte R. Lecourt
Registrar President
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL MAYRAS DELIVERED ON 22 SEPTEMBER 1976 1
Mr President, I — The provisions relating to the Members of the Court, Court do not contain any clause expressly conferring upon it jurisdiction In the present application 'directed in disputes arising from elections to such against the failure of the appointing socio-vocational bodies within the authority to verify the regularity and the Community institutions. lawfulness of the elections' which took place at the European Parliament on 18 Nevertheless it seems to me that Article March 1975 for the appointment of a 179, a general provision, can form the new staff committee, the applicant and basis for the settlement by the Court of two of his colleagues request you to such disputes: The Court of Justice shall annul the elections to that have jurisdiction in any dispute between socio-vocational body. the Community and its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid Since the Court has requested the parties down in the Staff Regulations or the to restrict their submissions to questions Conditions of Employment'. concerning the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the application I Whilst the European Parliament is not shall at this stage limit my remarks to directly concerned in the procedure for those two topics. the election of the Staff Committee and
I — Translated from the French.