Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Keywords
OFFICIALS - APPLICATIONS TO THE COURT - APPLICATION DIRECTED AGAINST A DRAFT DECISION - PREPARATORY ACT - INADMISSIBILITY
( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , ART . 91 ; RULES OF PROCEDURE , ART . 92 ( 1 ))
Parties
IN CASE 123/80
B ., AN OFFICIAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , RESIDING AT KEHLEN , REPRESENTED BY W . H . VERMEER , OF THE AMSTERDAM BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG C/O DR P . STEIN , 2 AVENUE PESCATORE ,
APPLICANT ,
V
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , KIRCHBERG , LUXEMBOURG ,
DEFENDANT ,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF A LETTER FROM THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DATED 30 APRIL 1980 NOTIFYING THE APPLICANT OF A DRAFT DECISION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE RULES ON THE INSURANCE OF OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AGAINST THE RISK OF ACCIDENT AND OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ( STAFF COURIER OF 25 FEBRUARY 1977 ),
Grounds
1 BY THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 92 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE : ' ' WHERE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF AN APPLICATION LODGED WITH IT IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 38 ( 1 ), THE COURT MAY BY REASONED ORDER DECLARE THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE . SUCH A DECISION MAY BE ADOPTED EVEN BEFORE THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM IT IS MADE . ' '
2 THAT PROVISION SHOULD BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE . IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE RULES ON THE INSURANCE OF OFFICIALS AGAINST THE RISK OF ACCIDENT AND OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE THAT THE NOTIFICATION TO THE OFFICIAL CONCERNED OF THE DRAFT DECISION WHICH THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY PROPOSES TO TAKE IS A PURELY PREPARATORY ACT . FURTHERMORE IT IS A FORMALITY THE SOLE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF THE OFFICIAL CONCERNED BY ENABLING HIM TO MAKE KNOWN ANY OBJECTIONS OR COMPLAINTS WHICH HE MAY HAVE AND TO REQUEST THE OPINION OF A MEDICAL COMMITTEE . THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR THAT BECAUSE THE ACTION HAS BEEN BROUGHT AGAINST A PURELY PREPARATORY ACT WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS NO INTEREST IN CHALLENGING , THE APPLICATION IS PATENTLY INADMISSIBLE AND THE COURT CLEARLY HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN IT , SO THAT IT MUST BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PROCEEDING FURTHER .
Decision on costs
3 BY ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , IN ACTIONS BROUGHT BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES , THE INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS , WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 69 ( 3 ) OF THOSE RULES . BY THAT LATTER PROVISION THE COURT MAY ORDER A PARTY TO PAY COSTS TO THE OTHER PARTY WHICH THE COURT CONSIDERS THE FIRST PARTY TO HAVE UNREASONABLY OR VEXATIOUSLY CAUSED THE OTHER TO INCUR .
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS ACTION IS SIMPLY INTENDED TO DELAY MATTERS AND THAT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS QUOTED ABOVE THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( THIRD CHAMBER )
HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :
1 . THE APPLICATION TO ANNUL THE DRAFT DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT OF 30 APRIL 1980 IS INADMISSIBLE .
2 . THE APPLICANT SHALL PAY THE COSTS .
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy