C-567/79

ORDER OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE COURT 14 OCTOBER 1981 1

Jakob Hamm ν Commission and Council of the European Communities

Case 567/79 A

In Case 567/79 A

JAKOB FLAMM, residing in the Via Grazia Delledda, Ranco (Varese), Italy, represented by B. Potthast and H.-J. Rüber, of the Cologne Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of V. Biel, 18 a, Rue des Glacis, applicant, v

1. COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, represented by J. Pipkorn, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of O. Montalto, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg,

having heard the views of the Advocate General,

makes the following

ORDER

Facts and Issues

On 24 December 1979 the applicant salary statement issued by the lodged an application supplementing his first-named defendant for April main application directed against the 1979 and its decisions of Council and the Commission (cf. Cases 28 September 1979 on the 530 to 729/79 and 781/79), in which he complaints submitted to it also in asks that the Court: so far as those decisions concern deductions for repayment of a I. (a) Declare null and void the salary building loan granted by the first- statement issued by the first- named defendant, the deductions named defendant for April 1979 exceeding the amounts in lire and its decisions of 28 September paid out for that purpose up to 1979 on the complaints submitted and including March 1979 on the to it also in so far as those basis of the higher rate of decisions concern deductions for exchange which was applied to repayment of a building loan the payment of the loans at the granted by the first-named time when the c o n t r a t c twas defendant, such deductions being modified ("updated") ; in excess of the amount given in lire for that item if the instalments (c) Rule that, in lire, the monthly are converted at the rate which repayments of the building loan was applied on payment of the should continue to correspond to loan; the amount as stated on 1 April 1979; (b) Alternatively, in the case of those applicants whose contracts for (d) Alternatively, in the case those building loans from the first- applicants whose contracts were named defendant were "updated" "updated" in 1975, rule that, in in 1975, declare null and void the lire, the monthly repayments of

the building loan are to be (b) Order the defendants to pay the calculated on the basis of the costs of the action. exchange rate which was applied to the payment of the loans at the As the supplementary application falls time when the contracts were outside the scope of the main action it updated; has been decided, at the suggestion of (e) In the further alternative, declare the applicant and with the agreement of that the applicant shall be the Commission, to treat it as a separate permitted, for a period of two action. years after the Court's decision has become binding, to make By a document dated 5 March 1981 advance repayment of his the Council raised an objection of building loan on the basis of the inadmissibility against the application rate of exchange applied to the pursuant to Article 91 (1) of the Rules of payment of the loan; Procedure of the Court, in which it requested the Court to declare the (f) Order the first-named defendant application inadmissible in so far as it to adjust the balance of the was directed against the Council and to applicant's building loan to take order the applicant to pay the costs. The account of the heads of claim set case was or no concern to persons other out at I (a) to (d) above; than the parties to the loan contract. As (g) Order the first-named defendant the Council was not such a party it could not be a party to the action. to pay the applicant in Italian lire the sum outstanding after the The applicant's reply to the objection, accounts have been adjusted in contained in a document dated 23 April accordance with head of claim 1981, is that the Council was cited in the I f); present action because the action is a II. (a) Order the defendants to com­ supplementary one and the Council was pensate the applicant for the one of the defendants in the original financial damage caused to him, action. As the Council is not a defendant such compensation to be fixed at in the present action it is not necessary the total of the interest, to submit argument on its objection. calculated at the rate of Should the Court take a different view 6 %, accumulated on the amount the applicant states that he would of arrears due on each instalment discontinue his action against the until such time as it is paid; Council.

According to Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs.

However, Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure states that in actions brought by servants of the Communities the institutions shall bear their own costs.

On those grounds,

THE COURT (First Chamber)

hereby orders as follows:

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the Council.