C-114/77
ECLI:EU:C:1978:6
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61977CO0114
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
JACQUEMART v COMMISSION
ORDER OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE COURT RELATING TO THE COUNCIL'S OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY OF JANUARY 1978
In Case 114/77
Claude Jacquemart
v
Council of the European Communities and
Commission of the European Communities
THE COURT (First Chamber)
composed of: G. Bosco, President, J. Mertens de Wilmars and A. O'Keeffe, Judges,
Advocate General: J.-P. Warner Registrar: A. Van Houtte
makes the following
ORDER
By an application of 22 September 1977 lodged at the Court Registry on the same date, the applicant, in accordance with Article 91 of the Staff Regu lations of Officials of the European Communities, commenced proceedings for the annulment of a decision of the Commission of 12 July 1977 and of Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 3177/76 of 21 December 1976.
The Council contends that, as far as it is concerned, the application should be declared inadmissible without any consideration of the substance of the case.
The fan that the applicant first of all by a personal communication addressed to the Council and subsequently in his application directed
ORDER OF 18. 1. 1978 — CASE 114/77
against the Commission's decision relating to the calculation of his severance grant called in question the validity of certain of the provisions of Council Regulation No 3177/76 does not confer upon the Council the attributes of an appointing authority within the meaning of Article 91 (2) of the said Staff Regulations.
On the other hand, since Regulation No 3177/76 is neither a decision addressed to the applicant nor a decision which, although in the form of a regulation, is of direct and individual concern to him, the application is also inadmissible in so far as it is based on Article 173 of the Treaty.
Finally, and in any event, even if the letter sent by the applicant to the President of the Council on 25 February 1977 in order to have Regulation (EEC) No 3177/76 amended or to have Article 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations interpreted by the Commission to his satisfaction could be regarded as a complaint within the meaning of Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations, the action directed against the reasoned reply of the Council of 15 March 1977 is inadmissible because it is out of time under Article 91 (2) of the Staff Regulations.
On those grounds,
Having regard to Articles 69, 70 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,
Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate General,
THE COURT (First Chamber)
hereby orders as follows:
1. The application is inadmissible in so far as it is brought against the Council;
2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Luxembourg 18 January 1978
A. Van Houtte G. Bosco
Registrar President of Chamber