Summary
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Keywords
COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS - OFFICIALS - REPRESENTATION - STAFF COMMITTEES - ELECTION - LEGALITY - DUTIES OF THE INSTITUTIONS - REVIEW BY THE COURT - LEGAL REMEDIES - JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , ARTICLE 9 ( 2 ), 90 , 91 AND ANNEX II )
Summary
IT FOLLOWS FROM ARTICLE 9 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS AND , IN GENERAL , FROM THE POWER OF ORGANIZATION WHICH EACH INSTITUTION EXERCISES WITHIN ITS OWN SPHERE OF JURISDICTION AND FROM ITS DUTY TO ENSURE THAT OFFICIALS HAVE COMPLETE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THEIR REPRESENTATIVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEMOCRATIC RULES THAT INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT ONLY ENTITLED TO INTERVENE OF THEIR OWN VOLITION WHEN THEY HAVE DOUBTS AS TO THE LEGALITY OF ELECTIONS TO THE STAFF COMMITTEE BUT MUST IN ADDITION SETTLE COMPLAINTS WHICH MAY BE SUBMITTED TO THEM IN THIS CONNEXION UNDER THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
THUS THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION IN ELECTORAL DISPUTES CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF STAFF COMMITTEES ON THE BASIS OF THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO APPLICATIONS BY OFFICIALS WHICH ARE LAID DOWN BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 179 OF THE EEC TREATY . WITHIN THIS FRAMEWORK THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE , IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS GENERAL TASK UNDER ARTICLE 164 OF THE EEC TREATY AND THE PARALLEL PROVISIONS OF THE ECSC AND EAEC TREATIES ALL OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST ELECTIONS HAVING REGARD TO THE RULES RELATING TO FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY COMMON TO ALL THE MEMBER STATES IN MATTERS OF ELECTORAL LAW .
Parties
IN CASE 54/75
RAPHAEL DE DAPPER , RESIDING IN LUXEMBOURG ,
CORNELIS VOLGER , RESIDING IN HEFFINGEN , AND
LEON BODSON , RESIDING IN LUXEMBOURG ,
OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , REPRESENTED BY VICTOR BIEL , ADVOCATE AT THE LUXEMBOURG BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF MR BIEL , 18A , RUE DES GLACIS ,
APPLICANTS ,
V
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-GENERAL , H . R . NORD , ACTING AS AGENT , ASSISTED BY ALEX BONN , ADVOCATE AT THE LUXEMBOURG BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF MR BONN , 22 COTE D ' EICH ,
DEFENDANT ,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEDURE FOR A DECISION CONCERNING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION WHICH IS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE ELECTIONS OF 18 MARCH 1975 TO THE STAFF COMMITTEE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ,
Grounds
1 THE APPLICATION IS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE ELECTIONS TO THE STAFF COMMITTEE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT HELD ON 18 MARCH 1975 BECAUSE OF ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES IN THE ELECTION PROCEEDINGS .
2 BY AN ORDER OF 6 MAY 1976 THE SECOND CHAMBER REFERRED THE CASE TO THE FULL COURT IN VIEW OF THE QUESTIONS OF PRINCIPLE INVOLVED IN THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION , IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPRESS PROVISION IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS CONCERNING ELECTORAL DISPUTES WITH REGARD TO THE APPOINTMENT OF STAFF COMMITTEES .
3 IN ORDER TO SETTLE THAT QUESTION THE COURT REQUESTED THE PARTIES TO GIVE FULLER DETAILS OF THEIR VIEWS ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN THIS SPHERE AND TO STATE HOW AN APPLICATION OF THIS NATURE CAN COME WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE PROCEDURES LAID DOWN BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
4 IN REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS PUT THE PARLIAMENT STATED THAT IT CONSIDERS THAT THE INSTITUTIONS HAVE THE RIGHT AND DUTY TO ENSURE THE REGULARITY OF ELECTIONS TO THE STAFF COMMITTEE AND TO INTERVENE IF THE ELECTORAL RULES HAVE NOT BEEN OBSERVED .
5 ACCORDING TO THE PARLIAMENT THAT RIGHT AND DUTY ARE BASED BOTH ON THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND ON THE GENERAL POWER OF ORGANIZATION ENJOYED WITHIN ITS SPHERE BY EACH INSTITUTION AND ON ITS DUTY TO PROTECT AND ASSIST ITS OFFICIALS AND OTHER SERVANTS .
6 FINALLY THE PARLIAMENT FURTHER STATES THAT IF THE COURT FINDS THAT THE CONTESTED ELECTIONS WERE IRREGULAR IT WILL TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO ENSURE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND THAT IT CONSIDERS THAT IT HAS ALL THE POWERS NECESSARY FOR THIS PURPOSE .
7 FOR THEIR PART THE APPLICANTS , FOR SIMILAR REASONS , HAVE RECOGNIZED THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT .
8 SINCE IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS THERE ARE NO EXPRESS PROVISIONS ON THE REVIEW OF ELECTIONS TO THE STAFF COMMITTEE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COURT OF JUSTICE HAS JURISDICTION IN THIS SPHERE MUST BE SETTLED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE GENERAL PROVISIONS ON APPLICATIONS BY OFFICIALS HAVING REGARD TO THE POSITION OF THE STAFF COMMITTEE UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
9 UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS A STAFF COMMITTEE IS TO BE SET UP WITHIN EACH INSTITUTION .
10 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 9 ( 2 ) THE COMPOSITION AND PROCEDURE OF THIS BODY SHALL BE DETERMINED BY EACH INSTITUTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ANNEX II TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
11 UNDER ARTICLE 9 ( 3 ) THE GENERAL TASK OF THE STAFF COMMITTEE IS TO REPRESENT THE GENERAL INTERESTS OF THE STAFF VIS-A-VIS THEIR INSTITUTION , MAINTAIN CONTINUOUS CONTACT BETWEEN THE INSTITUTION AND THE STAFF AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE SMOOTH RUNNING OF THE SERVICE .
12 WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THIS GENERAL TASK THE STAFF COMMITTEE PLAYS A VERY IMPORTANT PART IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE INSTITUTIONS .
13 IN PARTICULAR IT PARTICIPATES IN THE CONSTITUTION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE VARIOUS INTERNAL BODIES OF THE INSTITUTIONS SUCH AS THE JOINT COMMITTEE , SELECTION BOARDS FOR COMPETITIONS , DISCIPLINARY BOARDS AND SOCIAL WELFARE BODIES SET UP BY THE INSTITUTION IN THE INTERESTS OF ITS STAFF AS WELL AS IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS COMMITTEE IN RELATIONS BETWEEN THE INSTITUTIONS .
14 UNDER ARTICLE 1 OF ANNEX II EVERY OFFICIAL IN THE INSTITUTION TOGETHER WITH THE SERVANTS REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF OTHER SERVANTS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO VOTE IN ELECTIONS AND STAND FOR ELECTION TO THE STAFF COMMITTEES .
15 ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 1 OF ANNEX II LEAVES IT TO THE GENERAL MEETINGS OF STAFF OF THE VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS TO LAY DOWN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ELECTIONS ARE HELD IT NEVERTHELESS IMPOSES CERTAIN SPECIFIC RULES IN THIS CONNEXION .
16 THUS THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 1 PROVIDES THAT ELECTION SHALL BE BY SECRET BALLOT , THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH PROVIDES THAT THE ELECTION RULES MUST BE FIXED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF OFFICIALS ARE REPRESENTED WHILST THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH PROVIDES THAT ELECTIONS SHALL BE VALID ONLY IF TWO THIRDS OF THE OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO VOTE TAKE PART AND THAT IF THIS PROPORTION IS NOT ATTAINED A SECOND VOTE SHALL BE HELD .
17 EVEN THOUGH THESE PROVISIONS ARE INCOMPLETE , TAKEN AS A WHOLE THEY SHOW THAT THEY WERE INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT THE STAFF COMMITTEE IS REPRESENTATIVE .
18 SUCH A REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER CAN ONLY BE ENSURED BY MEANS OF ELECTIONS THE LEGALITY OF WHICH IS GUARANTEED AT ALL STAGES OF THE ELECTION PROCEEDINGS .
19 THESE FINDINGS HOWEVER LEAVE OPEN THE QUESTION OF THE LEGAL REMEDIES BY WHICH THE LEGALITY OF ELECTIONS MAY BE REVIEWED .
20 SINCE THE STAFF COMMITTEE IS AN INTERNAL BODY OF ITS INSTITUTION AND IS CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PREPARATION OF MEASURES TAKEN BY THE INSTITUTION RELATING TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT , REVIEW BY THE COURT CAN ONLY BE ENVISAGED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF APPLICATIONS DIRECTED AGAINST THE INSTITUTION CONCERNED .
21 THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH AN APPLICATION DEPENDS UPON WHETHER THE INSTITUTION HAS THE RIGHT AND THE DUTY TO INTERVENE IF THE ELECTIONS TO THE STAFF COMMITTEE ARE OPEN TO DISPUTE .
22 SUCH A DUTY IN FACT FOLLOWS FROM ARTICLE 9 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND , IN GENERAL , FROM THE POWER OF ORGANIZATION WHICH EACH INSTITUTION EXERCISES WITHIN ITS OWN SPHERE OF JURISDICTION AND FROM ITS DUTY TO ENSURE THAT OFFICIALS HAVE COMPLETE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THEIR REPRESENTATIVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEMOCRATIC RULES .
23 IT FOLLOWS FROM THIS THAT INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT ONLY ENTITLED TO INTERVENE OF THEIR OWN VOLITION WHEN THEY HAVE DOUBTS AS TO THE LEGALITY OF ELECTIONS TO THE STAFF COMMITTEE BUT MUST IN ADDITION SETTLE COMPLAINTS WHICH MAY BE SUBMITTED TO THEM IN THIS CONNEXION UNDER THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
24 THUS THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION IN ELECTORAL DISPUTES CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF STAFF COMMITTEES ON THE BASIS OF THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO APPLICATIONS BY OFFICIALS WHICH ARE LAID DOWN BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 179 OF THE EEC TREATY .
25 WITHIN THIS FRAMEWORK THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE , IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS GENERAL TASK UNDER ARTICLE 164 OF THE EEC TREATY AND THE PARALLEL PROVISIONS OF THE ECSC AND EAEC TREATIES , ALL OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST ELECTIONS HAVING REGARD TO THE RULES RELATING TO FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY COMMON TO ALL THE MEMBER STATES IN MATTERS OF ELECTORAL LAW .
26 THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION MUST BE APPRAISED ACCORDING TO THE FOREGOING PRINCIPLES .
27 IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT THE APPLICANTS , WHO WERE AT THE SAME TIME VOTERS AND CANDIDATES IN THE CONTESTED ELECTIONS , ARE QUALIFIED TO BRING THEIR ACTION AND HAVE A LEGAL INTEREST IN DOING SO .
28 WITH REGARD TO THE FORMALITIES AND PERIODS FOR LODGING APPLICATIONS PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FILE THAT THE ELECTIONS IN QUESTION WERE HELD ON 18 MARCH 1975 AND THAT THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTED AN INITIAL COMPLAINT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE OF TELLERS AS EARLY AS 4 APRIL 1975 .
29 WHEN THE CHAIRMAN DISMISSED THEIR COMPLAINT THEY DREW UP A COMPLAINT ON 5 MAY 1975 TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT WHICH WAS NOTIFIED IN THE COURSE OF 13 , 14 AND 15 MAY .
30 THE APPLICATION TO THE COURT ACCOMPANIED BY AN APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES WAS LODGED ON 16 JUNE 1975 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 91 ( 4 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
31 SUBSEQUENTLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION WHICH LED HIM TO NOTIFY THE APPLICANTS BY A LETTER OF 7 OCTOBER THAT HE CONSIDERED THEIR COMPLAINT UNFOUNDED IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXAMINATION HE HAD MADE .
32 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION CANNOT BE CONTESTED WITH REGARD TO THE REQUIREMENTS AS TO FORM AND AS TO THE PERIOD FOR LODGING AN APPLICATION PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
33 THE CASE MUST BE REMITTED TO THE CHAMBER WHICH HAS JURISDICTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXAMINATION AND A DECISION ON THE SUBSTANCE .
Decision on costs
COSTS
34 THE COSTS MUST BE RESERVED .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE ;
2 . ORDERS THE CASE TO BE REMITTED TO THE SECOND CHAMBER FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXAMINATION AND A DECISION ON THE SUBSTANCE ;
3 . RESERVES THE COSTS .
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy