Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Fulvio Fonzi v Commission of the EAEC. (Procedure ) [1966] EUECJ C-31/65 (15 December 1966)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1966/C3165.html
Cite as: [1966] EUECJ C-31/65

[New search] [Help]

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.

61965J0031
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 1966.
Fulvio Fonzi v Commission of the EAEC.
Case 31-65.
European Court reports
French edition 1966 Page 00741
Dutch edition 1966 Page 00738
German edition 1966 Page 00768
Italian edition 1966 Page 00694
English special edition 1966 Page 00513
Danish special edition 1965-1968 Page 00323
Greek special edition 1965-1968 Page 00473
Portuguese special edition 1965-1968 Page 00527

++++
1 . PROCEDURE - EXTENSION OF TIME-LIMITS ON ACCOUNT OF DISTANCE - APPLICANT'S PLACE OF RESIDENCE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
( RULES OF PROCEDURE, ANNEX II, ARTICLE I )
2 . OFFICIALS - DISPUTES WITH THE ADMINISTRATION - APPEAL THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS MADE WITHIN THE TIME-LIMIT FOR APPEAL TO THE COURT - TIME-LIMIT FOR APPEAL TO THE COURT PRESERVED
( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EAEC, ARTICLES 90, 91 )

1 . CF . PARA . 1, SUMMARY, CASE 28/65 ( 1966 ) ECR 477 .
THE EXTENSION OF TIME-LIMITS ON ACCOUNT OF DISTANCE IS DEPENDENT SOLELY ON THE FACTS, THAT IS TO SAY, ON WHERE THE APPLICANT IS HABITUALLY RESIDENT . THE PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF THE APPLICANT'S LAWYER CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION .
*/ 665J0028 /*.
2 . CF . PARA . 1, SUMMARY, IN JOINED CASES 27 AND 30/64 ( 1965 ) ECR 481 .
IT APPEARS FROM ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, READ TOGETHER, THAT APPEALS THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME TIME-LIMIT AS APPLIES TO APPEALS TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE, PROVIDED THAT THEY WERE THEMSELVES INSTITUTED WITHIN THE TIME LAID DOWN FOR APPEALS TO THE COURT . IN THE CASE OF A REJECTION OF AN APPEAL THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS, THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPLICANT BECOMES AWARE OF THIS REJECTION CONSTITUTES THE TERMINATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND MARKS THE DATE FROM WHICH TIME BEGINS TO RUN IN RESPECT OF THE TIME LIMIT FOR LODGING AN APPEAL TO THE COURT .
*/ 664J0027 /*.

IN CASE 31/65
FULVIO FONZI, A SCIENTIFIC OFFICER AT THE EAEC COMMISSION, ASSISTED BY MARIO GIULIANO, ADVOCATE AT THE CORTE DI CASSAZIONE, ITALY, AND PROFESSOR IN THE FACULTY OF LAW OF THE UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI, MILAN, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF ERNEST ARENDT, 6 RUE WILLY-GOERGEN,
APPLICANT,
V
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, ANTONIO MARCHINI-CAMIA, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF HENRI MANZANARES, SECRETARY OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, 2 PLACE DE METZ,
DEFENDANT,

APPLICATION FOR :
( A ) THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION CONTAINING THE PROMOTIONS FOR THE YEAR 1964, DATED 7 OCTOBER 1964, PUBLISHED BY BEING POSTED UP ON 9 OCTOBER 1964;
( B ) THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF 3 FEBRUARY 1965, NOTIFIED BY LETTER OF 16 FEBRUARY 1965, REJECTING THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS OF 10 DECEMBER 1964 AGAINST THE DECISION CONTAINING THE PROMOTIONS FOR THE YEAR 1964;

P.518
I - ADMISSIBILITY
THE DEFENDANT ALLEGES THAT THE APPLICATIONS FOR ANNULMENT OF THE DECISIONS CONCERNING PROMOTION FROM GRADE A5 TO GRADE A4 NOTIFIED BY BEING POSTED UP ON 9 OCTOBER 1964, AND THE DECISION REJECTING THE APPEAL THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS, NOTIFIED ON 17 FEBRUARY 1965, ARE INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THEY ARE OUT OF TIME . APPLICATION 31/65 WAS NOT IN FACT LODGED UNTIL 28 MAY 1965 WHILST WHEREAS THE PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FOR LODGING AN APPEAL PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS, EXTENDED BY TWO DAYS ON ACCOUNT OF DISTANCE, EXPIRED ON 19 MAY 1965 .
THE APPLICANT REPLIES THAT THE EXTENSION ON ACCOUNT OF DISTANCE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE WAS TEN DAYS, NOT TWO, SO THAT THE PERIOD FOR LODGING AN APPEAL DID NOT EXPIRE UNTIL THE EVENING OF 28 MAY 1965, 27 MAY 1965 BEING A HOLIDAY . IN SUPPORT OF THIS INTERPRETATION HE FIRST CLAIMS, AS HE HAS ALREADY EXPLAINED IN CASE 28/65, THAT BECAUSE HE WAS BEING KEPT ON IN THE POST TO WHICH HE WAS APPOINTED UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS, HE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS RESIDENT AS ISPRA AND AS MERELY ON TEMPORARY MISSION TO BRUSSELS . HE GOES ON TO SAY, BASING HIS ARGUMENT ON ARTICLES 37 AND 58 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THAT IN CALCULATING THE EXTENSION OF TIME ON ACCOUNT OF DISTANCE THE COUNTRY TO BE REFERRED TO IS NOT THE ONE WHERE THE APPLICANT HAPPENS TO BE, BUT THE COUNTRY WHERE THE LAWYER ASSISTING HIM IS RESIDENT AND PRACTISING .
IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT ON 17 FEBRUARY 1965, THE DATE FROM WHICH THE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR LODGING AN APPEAL BEGINS TO RUN, AND FOR THE WHOLE OF THAT TIME THE APPLICANT WAS IN FACT WORKING IN BRUSSELS AND NOT AT ISPRA .
CONSEQUENTLY, ACCORDING TO THE WORDING OF THE DECISION ON THE EXTENSION OF TIME-LIMITS ON ACCOUNT OF DISTANCE COMPRISING ANNEX II TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE APPLICANT WAS HABITUALLY RESIDENT IN BELGIUM BOTH ON 17 FEBRUARY 1965 AND DURING THE SUBSEQUENT MONTHS AND COULD NOT, THEREFORE, ENJOY MORE THAN TWO DAYS' EXTENSION ON ACCOUNT OF DISTANCE . MOREOVER THE RESULT OF THE EXPRESS WORDING IN THE SAID ANNEX II : ' PARTIES...HABITUALLY RESIDENT ' IS THAT WHAT IS TO BE CONSIDERED HERE IS THE HABITUAL PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF THE PARTIES, NOT OF THEIR LAWYERS .
THE APPEAL THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS, LODGED WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED FOR AN APPEAL TO THE COURT, HAS PRESERVED THE TIME-LIMIT UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS FOR MAKING AN APPEAL TO THE COURT . THE EXTENSION ON ACCOUNT OF DISTANCE IS DEPENDENT SOLELY ON THE FACTS, THAT IS TO SAY, ON WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS HIS PLACE OF RESIDENCE . ACCORDINGLY THE APPLICANT, BEING HABITUALLY RESIDENT IN BELGIUM, HAD THREE MONTHS AND TWO DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO BRING AN APPEAL TO THE COURT . SINCE THIS PERIOD EXPIRED ON 19 MAY 1965, THE APPLICATIONS FOR ANNULMENT LODGED ON 28 MAY 1965 ARE INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THEY ARE OUT OF TIME .

THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN HIS SUBMISSIONS .
UNDER ARTICLE 69(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
HOWEVER, ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT IN ACTIONS BROUGHT BY COMMUNITY OFFICIALS COSTS INCURRED BY INSTITUTIONS SHALL BE BORNE BY THE LATTER .

THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES APPLICATION 31/65 AS INADMISSIBLE .
2 . ORDERS EACH PARTY TO PAY ITS OWN COSTS .