C-123/80
ECLI:EU:C:1980:148
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61980CO0123
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
ORDER OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF 9 JUNE 1980 1
Β. ν European Parliament
Case 123/80
Officials — Applications to the Court — Application directed against a draft decision — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91; Rules of Procedure, Art. 92 (1))
In Case 123/80
B., an official of the European Parliament, residing at Kehlen, represented by W. H. Vermeer, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg c/o Dr P. Stein, 2 Avenue Pescatore, applicant, ν
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, Kirchberg, Luxembourg,
defendant,
APPLICATION for the annulment of a letter from the European Parliament dated 30 April 1980 notifying the applicant of a draft decision within the meaning of Article 21 of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European Communities against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease (Staff Courier of 25 February 1977), I — Language of the Case: Dutch.
ORDER OF 9. 6. 1980 — CASE 123/80
T H E COURT (Third Chamber),
composed of: J. Mertens de Wilmars, Judge, acting as President, Lord Mackenzie Stuart and O. Due, Judges,
Advocate General: H. Mayras Registrar: A. Van Houtte
upon hearing the Advocate General,
makes the following:
ORDER
Facts and Issues
The defendant institution started a a doctor or doctors appointed by the procedure against the applicant for his institutions. early retirement on the ground of permanent invalidity pursuant to Articles Furthermore, by Article 21 of the same 53, 59 and 78 of the Staff Regulations rules the appointing authority must first and Article 13 of Annex VIII thereto. notify the official or those entitled under him of the draft decision and of the findings of the doctor or doctors That procedure has been the subject of appointed by the institution. "The an action brought by the applicant and official or those entitled under him may now pending before the Court under No request that the full medical report be 731/79. communicated to a doctor chosen by them. Within a period of 60 days the The applicant, for his part, claims that he official or those entitled under him may is suffering from an occupational disease request that the Medical Committee within the meaning of Article 73 of the provided for in Article 23 deliver its Staff Regulations and the procedure opinion. Where, on expiry of this period, intended to secure a decision to that no request has been made for consul- effect on the part of the competent tation of the Medical Committee, the authority has been commenced. By appointing authority shall take a decision Article 19 of the Rules on the Insurance in accordance with the draft previously of Officials of the European supplied". Communities against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease, By a letter of 30 April 1980 pursuant to adopted on the basis of Article 73 of the the said Article 21 the Secretary-General Staff Regulations, that decision can be of the European Parliament notified the taken only on the basis of the findings of applicant of a draft decision which, on Β. ν PARLIAMENT
the basis of the findings of the on the ground that it was unlawful. On institution's doctor, ruled out the the same day by a separate document he existence of occupational disease. filed an appeal pursuant to Article 91 (4) of the Staff Regulations of Officials for a On 5 May 1980 the applicant submitted stay of execution of the "effects" of the against that notification a complaint said draft decision and in particular for within the meaning of Article 90 (2) of the suspension of the period of 60 days the Staff Regulations. provided for by Article 21 of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials against the Without waiting for the European Par Risk of Accident and of Occupational liament to come to a decision on his Disease until a decision was made on the complaint, on 21 May 1980 he brought substance of the application to annul the an action to annul the said draft decision draft decision.
Decision
1 By the terms of Article 92 (1) of the Rules of Procedure: "Where it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an application lodged with it in pursuance of Article 38 (1), the Court may by reasoned order declare the application inadmissible. Such a decision may be adopted even before the application has been served on the party against whom it is made."
2 That provision should be applied in this case. It is evident from the wording of Article 21 of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease that the notification to the official concerned of the draft decision which the competent authority proposes to take is a purely preparatory act. Furthermore it is a formality the sole purpose of which is to safeguard the rights of the official concerned by enabling him to make known any objections or complaints which he may have and to request the opinion of a Medical Committee. Therefore it is clear that because the action has been brought against a purely preparatory act which the applicant has no interest in challenging, the application is patently inadmissible and the Court clearly has no jurisdiction to entertain it, so that it must be dismissed without proceeding further.
ORDER OF 9. 6. 1980 — CASE 123/80
Costs
3 By Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure, in actions brought by servants of the Communities, the institutions shall bear their own costs, without prejudice to the second subparagraph of Article 69 (3) of those rules. By that latter provision the Court may order a party to pay costs to the other party which the Court considers the first party to have unreasonably or vexatiously caused the other to incur.
The circumstances of the case lead to the conclusion that this action is simply intended to delay matters and that pursuant to the provisions quoted above the applicant should bė ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
On those grounds,
THE COURT (Third Chamber)
hereby orders as follows :
1. The application to annul the draft decision of the European Par liament of 30 April 1980 is inadmissible.
2. The applicant shall pay the costs.
Luxembourg, 9 June 1980.
J. A. Pompe J. Mertens de Wilmars Deputy Registrar Judge, acting as President