Judgment of the Court (first chamber) 30 October 1969 Eva Rittweger v Commission of the European Communities

In Case 33/68

THE COURT (First Chamber) composed of: R. Monaco, President of Chamber, A. M. Donner and J. Mertens de Wilmars (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Summary of the facts

II — Conclusions of the parties The applicant claims that the Court should: Admit the application as formulated and declare it to be well founded; Annul or declare void the following disputed decisions:

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. Object of the proceedings

2. Conditions on which the allowance was granted

IV— Procedure

Grounds of judgment

Costs

I —. Summary of the facts

II —. Conclusions of the parties

(1). The decision by Mr van Gronsveld, Director-General for Personnel and Administration or by the Directorate-General for Personnel and Administration, communicated to the applicant on 3 October 1968, discontinuing the allowance for a dependent person;

(2). The decision by the same Director-General or by the same Directorate-General communicated to the applicant on 11 November 1968 confirming the first decision;

(1). Declare that it is not necessary to give judgment on the application made by the applicant on 24 December 1968. as it has no purpose:

(2). Take note that the Commission is willing to defray the costs incurred by the applicant until the lodging of the statement of defence;

(1). Declare that there is no reason to decide upon the application made by the applicant on 24 December 1968, as it has no purpose;

(2). Take note that the Commission is ready to defray the costs incurred by the applicant until the lodging of the statement of defence;

(3). Declare that the costs incurred by the applicant after that date are to be borne by her.

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. Object of the proceedings

2. Conditions on which the allowance was granted

IV—. Procedure

1. The application, based upon Article 91 of the Staff Regulations of the European Communities, seeks on the one hand the annulment of two decisions dated 3 October and 11 November 1968 communicating to the applicant and afterwards confirming that the allowance for a dependent person provided for, as far as she is concerned, by Article 5 of the General Regulations of the ECSC which entered into force on 1 July 1956 and were continued by Article 96 of the ECSC Staff Regulations and Article 2 of Regulation No 259/68, was withdrawn from her, and on the other hand a declaration that this allowance: must continue to be paid to the applicant in respect of her mother.

2. The applicant has benefited since 1954 from the abovementioned allowance, which the administration granted her so long as the conditions for its payment were fulfilled; an annual check on this was to be kept by the administration.

3. These conditions are laid down by Article 5(c) of the General Regulations mentioned above under which the maintenance of the dependent person must involve the servant concerned in heavy expenditure.

4. The defendant considered that, having regard to the income of the applicant, this expenditure could no longer be regarded as sufficiently heavy to justify the continuance of the allowance and withdrew it by the decision of 3 October 1968.

5. Upon an appeal by the applicant through official channels and after a fresh examination of her personal position the allowance was reinstated by a decision of 13 March 1969for a further year.

6. Nevertheless by an explanatory note of 6 June 1969 the defendant explained that the clause mentioning a time in relation to the grant of the allowance did not signify that after expiry of this period the grant would not be continued, but only that at such time there would be a fresh examination of the applicant's position in order to check whether the conditions for payment were still fulfilled.

7. The applicant thus found herself reinstated in law in the same situation in which she had been before the disputed decisions were taken.

8. The application which seeks the annulment of the disputed decisions and the continuation of the allowance has become without purpose, since the disputed decisions have been withdrawn and the allowance to the applicant is being continued on the same conditions as before.

9. It must therefore be rejected as having become inadmissible for lack of purpose.

10. Under Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice the costs incurred by institutions in applications by servants of the Communities shall be borne by the latter, without prejudice to the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 69(3) of those rules.

11. The defendant has agreed in its statement of defence to bear the costs of the proceedings incurred by the applicant until the lodging of its statement.

12. However it was only in the schedule to its rejoinder that it produced a staff memorandum of 6 June 1969 containing the necessary details on the scope of its decision withdrawing the disputed measures.

13. Under the second subparagraph of Article 69(3) mentioned above, the Court may order even a successful party to bear the costs which that party has caused the opposite party to incur.

14. It is appropriate to order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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 the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, especially Article 33; 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 Community; Having regard to Article 5 of the General Regulations of the ECSC annexed to the Staff Regulations of the ECSC of 1 July 1956; Having regard to Article 96 of the Staff Regulations of the ECSC which entered into force on 1 January 1962; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, especially Article 91; Having regard to the last paragraph of Article 2 of Regulation No 259/68; THE COURT hereby:

1 Dismisses the application as inadmissible for lack of purpose;

2 Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the proceedings.

1 Language of the Case: French.