C-192/80
ECLI:EU:C:1981:119
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61980CO0192
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
ORDER OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF 21 MAY 1981 1
Jean-Jacques Charles Geist v Commission of the European Communities
Case 192/80
In Case 192/80
JEAN-JACQUES CHARLES GEIST
v
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
THE COURT (First Chamber)
composed of: T. Koopmans, President of Chamber, A. O'Keeffe and G. Bosco, Judges,
Advocate General: S. Rozès Registrar: A. Van Houtte
Having heard the views of the Advocate General,
makes the following 1 — Language of the Case: French.
ORDER OF 21. 5. 1981 — CASE 192/80
ORDER
Facts and Issues
On 14 July 1977 the Court (Second in this case has the same purpose and Chamber) gave a judgment in Case relates to the same cause of action as the 61/76 (Geist v Commission) which inter claims accepted by the Court in 1977. It alia ordered the Commission to pay the is true that paragraph 46 of the judgment applicant BFR 10 000 as damages for of 14 July 1977, as served on the failure to draw up periodic reports for applicant, contained an error as no the period 1965 to 1975. reference was made to the periodic report for the years 1973 to 1975. However, it appears clearly from the judgment that the intention of the Court By application lodged at the Registry on was in reality to give judgment in 29 September 1980, Mr Geist asked the relation to the whole period referred to Court to order the Commission to draw in the application. If the view should be up his periodic report for the period taken that the Court did not give 1973 to 1975, relying upon a single judgment in relation to the said report submission in support of his claim, this action is, in the Commission's view, namely infringement of Article 43 of the out of time and accordingly inadmissible. Staff Regulations of Officials. The applicant emphasizes, in his obser- By a document lodged at the Registry on vations on the aforementioned objection, 3 November 1980 the Commission put that paragraph 46 of the judgment is forward an objection of inadmissibility perfectly clear and refers to the reports under Article 91 (1) of the Rules of for 1969, 1971 and 1973 and nothing Procedure. It claims that the application else.
Decision
According to the provisions of Article 91 (3) of the Rules of Procedure unless the Court decides otherwise the remainder of the proceedings in relation to an objection is to be oral. The Court takes the view that there is no need to open the oral procedure and decides, pursuant to Article 91 (3), to deal with the application without delay on the basis of the written documents.
GEIST v COMMISSION
Although there is a slip of the pen in paragraph 46 of the judgment in Case 61/76 it appears clearly both from paragraph 17 and from the operative part of the judgment that the Court included the periodic report for 1973 to 1975 in the list of reports which the applicant was seeking to have drawn up and that the damages fixed at BFR 10 000 were calculated for the failure to draw up all the periodic reports, including the one in question in these proceedings.
The application is inadmissible.
On those grounds
THE COURT (First Chamber)
hereby orders as follows :
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Luxembourg, 21 May 1981.
A. Van Houtte T. Koopmans Registrar President of the First Chamber