JUDGMENT OF 15. 12. 1966 — CASE 31/65 FONZI v COMMISSION

In Case 31/65

THE COURT (First Chamber) composed of: A. Trabucchi, President of Chamber, L. Delvaux (Rapporteur) and R. Lecourt, Judges, Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: H. J. Eversen, Deputy Registrar

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Summary of the facts

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

A — Admissibility

B — The substance of the case

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

I — Admissibility

II — Costs

I —. Summary of the facts

II —. Conclusions of the parties

A —. In his application the applicant claims that the Court should:

B —. In its statement of defence the defendant contends that the Court should:

C —. In his reply the applicant claims:

D —. In its rejoinder the defendant contends that the Court should:

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

A —. Admissibility

1. In calculating the extension of the time-limits on account of distance what must betaken into account is not, he says, the country in which the applicant happens to be but the country where the advocate assisting him is resident and carries on his business. This is proved by the compulsory requirement that an official be assisted before the Court (Rules of Procedure, Article 58), the fact that the pleadings are signed by the advocate (ibid, Article 37) and the option of the parties to be assisted by an advocate resident in a country other than that in which they habitually reside.

2. Moreover, in view of the fact that the applicant was kept in the post under the Staff Regulations to which he had been appointed, he must be considered as still resident at Ispra and merely on temporary mission to Brussels.

B —. The substance of the case

1. The applicant's criticisms regarding the judgment in Case 27/64 have no bearing on the present dispute and show a lack of due respect for the Court.

2. According to the defendant, Vacancy Notice No V/P/4/64 published on 1 October 1964 was a perfectly regular communication to staff and in accordance with the requirements of Article 4 of the Regulations. The notice preceded the promotion decisions which are dated 7 October 1964; it states the number of posts to be filled, shows the grade of each one, that is, their level, and names the relevant Directorate-General, the directorate and the department for each vacant post. Thus the definition of each post provides the staff with adequate information. The defendant remarks that Article 4 of the Regulations does not require the institution to explain how it intends to fill the vacant posts and that the applicant is confusing the application of Article 4 with that of Article 29 of the Regulations.

3. The defendant alleges that even if the abovementioned notice was irregular in some respects, the defect could not have any effect on the applicant's promotion prospects for 1964.

4. The defendant says that it is aware that moving from Grade A 5 to Grade A 4 in the scientific and technical services entails entry into a new career bracket, which presupposes the existence of a vacant post. Precisely for that reason, it says, it applied Article 4 of the Regulations by publishing the vacancy notice on 1 October 1964.

IV —. Procedure

I —. Admissibility

II —. Costs

On those grounds, 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 Article 152 of the Treaty establishing the EAEC; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EAEC; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the EAEC, especially Articles 90 and 91; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities; THE COURT (First Chamber) hereby:

1 Dismisses Application 31/65 as inadmissible.

2 Orders each party to pay its own costs.