C-141/80
ECLI:EU:C:1980:262
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61980CO0141
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
O R D E R O F T H E T H I R D CHAMBER O F T H E C O U R T OF 18 N O V E M B E R 1980 '
Margherita Hebrant, née Macevičius v European Parliament
Case 141/80
Officials — Applications to the Court — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — Measures relating to the drawing up of the budget of an institution — Exclusion (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 (2) and 91 (1))
The proposals and decisions of the and consequently cannot constitute competent departments of an institution decisions adversely affecting officials relating to the drawing up of its budget within the meaning of Articles 90 (2) and are not capable of affecting the position 91 (1) of the Staff Regulations. of officials under the Staff Regulations
In Case 141/80
MARGHERITA HEBRANT, NÉE MACEVIČIUS, an official of the European Par liament, represented by Victor Biel of the Luxembourg Bar, whose Chambers are at 18 A Rue des Glacis, Luxembourg,
applicant,
v
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, represented by F. Pasetti-Bombardella acting as Agent, Kirchberg, Luxembourg, assisted by A. Bonn of the Luxembourg Bar,
defendant,
l — Language of the Case: French.
ORDER OF 18. 11. 1980 — CASE 141/80
APPLICATION for the annulment of a recommendation for promotion,
T H E C O U R T (Third Chamber)
composed of J. Mertens de Wilmars, President, O. Due and U. Everling, Judges,
Advocate General: G. Reischl Registrar: A. Van Houtte
makes the following
ORDER
Facts and Issues
The applicant, Margherita Hebrant, née from A 5/4 to A 3 for the heads of the Macevičius, is a principal administrator Cataloguing Section and the Reference, in Grade A4 at the European Par Information and Documentation Section. liament, the defendant. She is responsible for the Cataloguing Section of the Par liament's library, which falls under the Directorate-General for Research and In a memorandum dated 5 September Documentation. Mr Reid, also a 1979 for the attention of the Secretary principal administrator in Grade A 4, is General of the Parliament regarding the in charge of the Reference, Information adoption of the 1980 budget, Mr Taylor, and Documentation Section. the Director-General for Research and Documentation, referring to the budgetary limits fixed by the Parliament by a resolution dated 10 May 1979, In several preparatory documents proposed only the conversion of the post relating to the budget and to the detailed of the head of the Reference, Infor list of posts at the Parliament, issued in mation and Documentation Section to particular by the Secretary General and Grade A 3 for the budgetary year 1980, the Committee on Budgets, reference without mentioning the Cataloguing had been made during the course of Section. This proposal was then taken up 1978 and 1979, amongst suggested and adopted by the Secretary General alterations to the administrative and the Committee on Budgets of the structure, to the "conversion" of posts Parliament.
MACEVIČIUS v PARLIAMENT
In a letter to the President of the Par namely herself and Mr Reid, should be liament dated 6 November 1979, which promoted to Grade A 3. was registered on 12 November 1979, the applicant complained that the Cataloguing Section had not been taken into consideration as regards applications for conversion of posts. According to the applicant, this was the manifestation of a By an application received at the Court systematic administrative policy pursued on 14 August 1980, the Parliament, in by Mr Taylor with the object of accordance with Article 91 of the Rules regrading the post of the head of the of Procedure, put forward an objection Reference, Information and Documen of inadmissibility against this action. The tation Section to the detriment of the objection is based essentially on the Cataloguing Section. following arguments: the applicant's letter dated 6 November 1979 did not constitute a complaint within the meaning of Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations; as the Secretary General's letter of 25 April 1980 initiated an inquiry, there was no decision, express or By a letter dated 25 April 1980, the implied, to reject the complaint within Secretary General of the Parliament the meaning of the second indent of acknowledged the receipt of the letter Article 91 (2) of the Staff Regulations; from the applicant "within the meaning the acts contested by the action could of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations", not be described as acts adversely and asked her for supplementary details. affecting the applicant within the meaning of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, against which an application to the Court would lie.
On 14 July 1980, Vacancy Notice N o 2677 was published for a post of head of division (career bracket A 3), a regraded The applicant replied to the objection of post to be included on the detailed list of inadmissibility by a document lodged on posts for the Directorate of the 17 October 1980 setting out, in Reference, Information and Documen particular, the following arguments: the tation Division. content of the letter dated 6 November 1979 clearly showed that it was a complaint and not simply a request under Article 25 of the Staff Regu lations; as no reply to the complaint was received within the period fixed in the In her action, which was brought by an Staff Regulations, there had been an application lodged at the Court Registry implied decision to reject the complaint, on 11 June 1980, the applicant claims which was the proper subject of an that the recommendation that Mr Reid action; as Mr Taylor had decided to alone should be promoted to Grade A 3 recommend Mr Reid's promotion before should be annulled as being contrary to any decision had been taken on the Articles 5 (3) and 45 of the Staff Regu regrading of the post in question such lations. Alternatively, the applicant promotion might be the subject of an claims that both persons in question, action.
ORDER OF 18. 11. 1980 — CASE 141/80
Decision
According to the provisions of Article 91 (3) of the Rules of Procedure, after the other party has put forward his submissions on the said objection of inadmissibility and the grounds for them, the remainder of the proceedings on the objection are to be oral unless the Court decides otherwise. The Court considers that in this case it has sufficient information and that there is no need for it to open the oral procedure.
The action is patently inadmissible.
In so far as the object of the action is the annulment of memoranda by Mr Taylor as well as reports by the Secretary General and the Parliament's Committee on Budgets, it is not directed against decisions of the appointing authority which constitute acts adversely affecting the applicant within the meaning of Articles 91(1) and 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations. The proposals and decisions of the competent departments of the Parliament relating to the drawing up of the budget are not capable of affecting the position of the applicant or Mr Reid under the Staff Regulations. Even supposing that such proposals and decisions had, as the applicant alleges, the sole object of implementing the promotion of Mr Reid to the detriment of the applicant, those measures would, nevertheless, merely constitute purely preparatory acts to that intent, which cannot be the subject of an action.
The publication of Vacancy Notice No 2677 for the post of head of the Reference, Information and Documentation Division was subsequent to the bringing of the action. The vacancy notice was not the subject of a prior complaint on the part of the applicant. Consequently it cannot be the subject of the action.
In so far as the action seeks in the alternative the promotion of the applicant at the same time as that of Mr Reid, it must be held that in the absence of any application for that purpose, such promotion has not been the subject of an express or implied decision of rejection on the part of the appointing authority within the meaning of Article 90 (1) of the Staff Regulations.
The action must therefore be dismissed.
Pursuant to Articles 69 (2) and 70 of the Rules of Procedure, the parties must bear their own costs.
MACEVIČIUS v PARLIAMENT
On those grounds,
THE COURT (Third Chamber),
upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate General,
hereby orders as follows :
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Luxembourg, 18 November 1980.
A. Van Houtte J. Mertens de Wilmars Registrar President