C-7/99
ECLI:EU:C:1999:227
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61999CO0007
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
ORDER OF 30. 4. 1999 — CASE C-7/99 Ρ
ORDER O F THE COURT 30 April 1999 *
In Case C-7/99 P,
Franco Campoli, official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels, Belgium, represented by Sergio Diana, of the Cagliari and Brussels Bars, with an address for service at 205 Rue Belliard, Brussels,
appellant,
APPEAL against the order of 12 October 1998 in Case T-235/97 Campoli ν Com mission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-577 and 11-1731, seeking to have that order set aside and requesting that the forms of order sought at first instance be upheld,
the other party to the proceedings being:
Commission of the European Communities,
defendant at first instance,
I - 2680
CAMPOU ν COMMISSION
T H E COURT,
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, H . Ragnemalm, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges,
Advocate General: P. Léger, Registrar: R. Grass,
after hearing the Advocate General,
makes the following
Order
1 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 14 January 1999, Mr Campoli brought an appeal pursuant to Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice and the corresponding provisions of the ECSC and Euratom Stat- utes against the order of 12 October 1998 in Case T-235/97 Campoli ν Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-577 and 11-1731 (hereinafter 'the contested order'), dismissing as inadmissible his action for annulment, first, of the Commission's decision of 16 October 1996 rejecting his application for reclassification in grade and, second,
* Language of the case: Italian.
I-2681
ORDER OF 30. 4. 1999 — CASE C-7/99 Ρ
of the Commission's decision of 29 April 1997 rejecting the complaint lodged against the decision of 16 October 1996.
2 In accordance with Article 112(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the contested order was appended to the appeal, in the form of a copy dated 13 October 1998 the authenticity of which was confirmed by the signature of the Reg istrar of the Court of First Instance. The appeal states that the contested order was notified to the appellant by letter of the Registrar dated 13 November 1998, a copy of which is also appended to the appeal.
3 When requested by the Registry of the Court of Justice to state the date of notifica tion of the contested order, counsel for the appellant replied that the letter of noti fication had been received on 14 November 1998. However, it appears from the case-file passed by the Registry of the Court of First Instance to the Registry of the Court of Justice that, although the letter accompanying the certified copy of the contested order — sent by registered mail with a request for acknowledgment of receipt — was mistakenly dated 13 November 1998, the acknowledgment of receipt was signed by the addressee on 19 October 1998, a date attested to by the postmark affixed by the post office responsible for returning that acknowledgment to the sender.
4 Under Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where an appeal is, in whole or in part, clearly inadmissible or clearly unfounded, the Court may at any time, acting on a report from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, by reasoned order dismiss the appeal in whole or in part.
5 Pursuant to Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal must be brought within two months of the notification of the decision appealed against.
I - 2682
CAMPOLI ν COMMISSION '
6 It is clear from the case-law concerning the jurisdiction of the Community judi cature and the procedure before those Courts that the date of notification or service of an act is the date on which that act is received (see, to that effect, as regards the notification of decisions in proceedings brought under the Staff Regulations of Offi cials of the European Communities, Case 108/79 Belfiore ν Commission [1980] E C R 1769, paragraph 7; Case 152/85 Misset ν Council [1987] E C R 223, paragraph 7; and, as regards the lodging of an application initiating proceedings, the order of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 1992 in Case T-47/92 Lenz and Others ν Commission [1992] E C R II-2523, paragraph 34).
7 It follows that the point at which time starts to run for the purposes of bringing an appeal is the date of reception of notification of the contested judgment or order, that is to say, in the present case, 19 October 1998, the date indicated by the addressee of the notification on the acknowledgment of receipt and confirmed by the postmark affixed by the post office which returned that acknowledgment.
8 Thus the appeal lodged on 14 January 1999 was lodged outside the two-month period prescribed by Article 49 of the E C Statute of the Court of Justice and must therefore be dismissed as clearly inadmissible.
Costs
9 Pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure, the| appellant must bear his own costs.
I - 2683
ORDER OF 30. 4. 1999 — CASE C-7/99 Ρ
O n those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby orders:
1. The appeal is dismissed as inadmissible.
2. The appellant shall bear his own costs.
Luxembourg, 30 April 1999.
R. Grass G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias
Registrar President
I - 2684