JUDGMENT OF 4. 4. 1960 — CASE 34/59 ELZ v HIGH AUTHORITY

In Case 34/59

THE COURT (Second Chamber) composed of: R. Rossi, President, A. M. Donner (Rapporteur) and Ch. L. Hammes, Judges, Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

I — Summary of facts

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

A — Objections

1. As to the extinguishment of the right of action

2. The lack of jurisdiction of the Court

3. As to the admissibility of the action

B — The substance of the case

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

The admissibility of the action

Costs

I —. Summary of facts

II —. Conclusions of the parties

1. Annul the decision of the President of the High Authority of 9 July 1956 which proposed the application to the applicant of the provisions of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the Community as an established official in Grade 9, Step 3 of Category B with effect from 1 July 1956 in so far as that proposal placed the applicant in Grade 9;

2. Annul the implied rejection to be inferred from the failure of the High Authority to reply to letters from the applicant of 2 August 1956, 25 September 1956 and 5 May 1959;

3. Rule on its own initiative that the responsibilities of comptable analyste for which the applicant was employed by the High Authority are such as to place him in Category B, Grade 7, or in the alternative, in Category B, Grade 8;

4. In the alternative, and in so far as is necessary, commission an expert's report in order to decide in what grade in the table of posts of staff of the European Coal and Steel Community the duties of comptable analyste should be placed taking account, where necessary, of the qualification and professional abilities of the applicant;

5. Order the High Authority to bear the costs including lawyers' fees.

1. Rule that the application is out of time and therefore inadmissible;

2. In the alternative, rule that the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the third and fourth heads of the application and declare that the action is inadmissible;

3. Further in the alternative, dismiss the application as being without foundation with the ensuing legal consequences.

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

A —. Objections

1. As to the extinguishment of the right of action

(a). The defendant maintains in the first place that the applicant had a right of action against the decision of 9 July 1956. The applicant failed to make use of it within the period set out in Article 2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of 21 February 1957.

(b). Secondly, with regard to the refusal to reclassify the applicant to be inferred from the defendant's failure to answer his letter of 5 May 1959, the defendant denies that this refusal had the effect of setting in motion a new period for appealing against the decisions of 1956. The letter of 5 May 1959 constitutes nothing more than representations which cannot set in motion hew limitation periods enabling contentious proceedings to be instituted, especially as the letter merely repeats the objections raised in 1956.

2. The lack of jurisdiction of the Court

3. As to the admissibility of the action

B —. The substance of the case

(a). Accounting officer, special class, classified in Grade 6;

(b). Accounting officer, classified in Grades 7 and 8;

(c). Assistent accounting officer, classified in Grades 9 and 10.

IV —. Procedure

Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Community; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Community of 21 February 1957 for disputes referred to in Article 58 of the Staff Regulations of the European Coal and Steel Community; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, THE COURT (Second Chamber) hereby:

1 Dismisses the application;

2 Orders the parties to bear their own costs.