C-259/84
ECLI:EU:C:1985:51
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61984CO0259
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
Cases 259/84 and 259/84 R
Dieter Strack v European Parliament
Summary
Officials — Actions before the Court — Prior complaint through official channels — Complaint not yet rejected — Inadmissibility (StaffRegulations of Officials, Art. 91 (2))
ORDER OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE COURT 31 January 1985 *
In Cases 259/84 and 259/84 R
Dieter Strack,
applicant, v
European Parliament,
defendant,
APPLICATION for the annulment of the decision dated 21 September 1984 taken by the Selection Board in Competition No PE/27/A,
* Language of the Case: German.
ORDER OF 31. 1. 1985 — CASES 259/84 AND 259/84 R
THE COURT (First Chamber)
composed of: G. Bosco, President of Chamber, T. Koopmans and R. Joliét, Judges,
Advocate General: P. VerLoren van Themaat Registrar: P. Heim
makes the following
ORDER
1. By application lodged at the Court on which he could take the written test. By Registry on 6 November 1984, Dieter a decision of 21 September 1984, the Strack, residing at Vulbens, Haute-Savoie, Selection Board refused to do so. brought an action under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the 4. On 31 October 1984, Mr Strack European Communities for annulment of brought the present action against that the decision dated 21 September 1984 taken decision. On 2 November 1984, he also by the Selection Board in Competition No submitted a complaint to the President of PE/27/A and, in the alternative, for the European Parliament. Several weeks damages. In its contested decision, the later, on 28 January 1985, Mr Strack also Selection Board refused to fix a new date brought an action to suspend the operation on which Mr Strack could take the written of the decision. tests for a competition organized by the European Parliament. Mr Strack also 5. In support of his application, Mr Strack brought an application to suspend the contends that the invitation was sent to him operation of that decision. at a date too close to that of the competition. The notice which he received 2. Mr Strack, an official of the United was thus unreasonably short and contrary to Nations, submitted his candidature for the established practice of the Community Competition No PE/27/A, organized by institutions. the European Parliament. He was admitted to the written test, but the invitation to take 6. Under Article 92 (1) of the Rules of part in that test arrived at Mr Strack's place Procedure, where it is clear that the Court of residence while he was on holiday. He has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an did not become aware of it in time and was application, it may by reasoned order therefore unable to take part in the test. declare the application inadmissible. In this case, one of the conditions of admissibility 3. Mr Strack therefore asked the Selection for an action brought under Article 91 of Board for the competition to fix a new date the Staff Regulations is lacking. Article 91
STRACK / PARLIAMENT
of the Staff Regulations clearly states that 7. Consequently, it must be held, pursuant an appeal will lie under that provision only to Article 91 of the Staff Regulations and if the appointing authority has previously Article 92 (1) of the Rules of Procedure, had a complaint submitted to it and the that the action has been brought without complaint has been expressly or impliedly obtaining a decision on the complaint and rejected. In the present case, although a that it is for that reason inadmissible; the complaint was certainly submitted, the application for the adoption of interim action was brought without waiting for a measures brought on 28 January 1985 is decision to be given on that complaint. therefore also inadmissible.
On those grounds,
having heard the views of the Advocate General,
THE COURT (First Chamber)
hereby orders as follows :
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
Luxembourg, 31 January 1985.
P. Heim G. Bosco Registrar President of the First Chamber