Summary
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Keywords
OFFICIALS - OTHER SERVANTS - APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 179 OF THE EEC TREATY - PRIOR COMPLAINT - ABSENCE THEREOF - INADMISSIBILITY
( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , ARTICLE 91 ; CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF OTHER SERVANTS , ARTICLE 46 )
Summary
AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 179 OF THE TREATY CANNOT BE DECLARED ADMISSIBLE IN THE ABSENCE OF A PRIOR COMPLAINT AS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS .
Parties
IN CASE 91/76 ,
JOELLE DE LACROIX , REPRESENTED BY NICOLA CATALANO , ADVOCATE , OF ROME , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF ERNEST ARENDT , CENTRE LOUVIGNY ,
APPLICANT ,
V THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY ITS AGENT , ALBERT VAN HOUTTE , ASSISTED BY ADRIEN VAN KAUVENBERGH , BATONNIER HONORAIRE DE L ' ORDRE DES AVOCATS DE LUXEMBOURG ,
DEFENDANT ,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT ' S APPLICATION FOR A POST OF LAWYER/LINGUIST .
Grounds
1 THE APPLICATION , DATED 27 SEPTEMBER 1976 AND ENTERED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON THE SAME DAY , IS BROUGHT AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE AND SEEKS THE ANNULMENT , IN ITS OWN WORDS , ' OF THE REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT ' S APPLICATION FOR THE COMPETITION FOR THE POST OF LAWYER/LINGUIST OF FRENCH MOTHER TONGUE ' .
2 AFTER THE APPLICATION WAS LODGED , THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS .
3 THE DEFENDANT HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY BASED , PRINCIPALLY , ON NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS IN THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT , BEFORE LODGING HER APPLICATION , SUBMIT TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ACT ADVERSELY AFFECTING HER , AND , ALTERNATIVELY , ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT A PERSON TO WHOM THE STAFF REGULATIONS APPLY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
4 THE DEFENDANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER ) SHOULD GIVE A RULING ON THIS OBJECTION , UNDER ARTICLE 91 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , WITHOUT GOING INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE .
5 THIS REQUEST MUST BE GRANTED .
6 WHILE THE APPLICANT LEAVES IT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT AS REGARDS THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTION RAISED , SHE STATES THAT THE DEFENDANT CANNOT DENY THAT SHE IS A ' PERSON TO WHOM THESE STAFF REGULATIONS APPLY ' AND AT THE SAME TIME CONSIDER HER AS BOUND TO COMPLY WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
7 IF SHE IS NOT A PERSON TO WHOM THE STAFF REGULATIONS APPLY , HER APPLICATION IS BASED ON ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY , WHICH PROVISION DOES NOT MAKE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF AN APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR SUBMISSION OF AN APPEAL THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS .
8 HOWEVER , IN SO FAR AS IT IS BASED ON ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY , THE APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE SINCE THAT PROVISION CONFERS NO RIGHT TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNULMENT OF THE ACTS OF INSTITUTIONS OTHER THAN THE COUNCIL OR THE COMMISSION .
9 IN CONSEQUENCE , THE APPLICATION IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT IS BASED ON ARTICLE 179 OF THE TREATY , UNDER WHICH THE COURT OF JUSTICE HAS JURISDICTION IN ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND ITS SERVANTS WITHIN THE LIMITS AND UNDER THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS OR THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT .
10 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , AND WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A DECISION ON THE SUBMISSION OF INADMISSIBILITY BASED ON THE FACT THE APPLICANT IS NOT A ' PERSON TO WHOM THESE STAFF REGULATIONS APPLY ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , WHICH , BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 46 OF THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF OTHER SERVANTS , HAVE BEEN MADE APPLICABLE BY ANALOGY TO THE SAID ' OTHER SERVANTS ' , AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 179 OF THE TREATY CANNOT BE DECLARED ADMISSIBLE IN THE ABSENCE OF A PRIOR COMPLAINT AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE SAID ARTICLE 91 .
11 SINCE THIS ESSENTIAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED , THE APPLICATION MUST BE DECLARED INADMISSIBLE .
Decision on costs
COSTS
12 THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN HER SUBMISSIONS .
13 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
14 NEVERTHELESS UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , IN PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES THE INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
15 SINCE THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN DECLARED INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF OTHER SERVANTS , ARTICLES 69 AND 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE MUST BE APPLIED BY ANALOGY .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION AS INADMISSIBLE ;
2 . ORDERS EACH PARTY TO BEAR ITS OWN COSTS .
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy