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) >> Willem Vinck v Commission of the European Communities. (Officials ) [1971] EUECJ C-53/70 (24 June 1971)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1971/C5370.html
Cite as: [1971] EUECJ C-53/70

[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.

61970J0053
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 June 1971.
Willem Vinck v Commission of the European Communities.
Case 53-70.
European Court reports 1971 Page 00601
Danish special edition 1971 Page 00153
Greek special edition 1969-1971 Page 00877
Portuguese special edition 1971 Page 00227

++++
1 . OFFICIALS - APPLICATION - IMPLIED REJECTION - EXPIRY OF LIMITATION PERIOD FOR APPEAL - EXPRESS REJECTION - ABSENCE OF ANY NEW FACTOR - CONFIRMATORY NATURE - NO ACT ADVERSELY AFFECTING APPLICANT
2 . ACTION FOR DAMAGES - CONNEXION WITH ACTION FOR ANNULMENT
( STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 91 )

1 . A DECISION WHICH IS CONFIRMATORY OF AN EARLIER IMPLIED DECISION OF REFUSAL DOES NOT CAUSE TIME TO BEGIN TO RUN AFRESH FOR THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING PROCEEDINGS .
2 . AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES WHICH IS ONLY DESIGNED TO OBTAIN FOR THE APPLICANT THE EQUIVALENT OF BENEFITS WHICH HE HAS BEEN REFUSED BY A DECISION AGAINST WHICH AN ACTION FOR ANNULMENT IS INADMISSIBLE MUST MEET THE SAME FATE AS THE LATTER ACTION .

IN CASE 53/70
WILLEM VINCK, AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, RESIDING AT OVERIJSE ( BELGIUM ), REPRESENTED BY JACQUES PUTZEYS, ADVOCATE OF THE COUR D' APPEL, BRUSSELS, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF NICOLAS WENNMACHER, HUISSIER, 17 BOULEVARD ROYAL, APPLICANT,
V
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, LOUIS DE LA FONTAINE, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF ITS LEGAL ADVISER, EMILE REUTER, 4 BOULEVARD ROYAL, DEFENDANT,

APPLICATION RELATING, AT THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF MR VINCK' S APPLICATION FOR, ON THE ONE HAND, THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION OF 21 MAY 1970 REJECTING HIS APPLICATION OF 16 FEBRUARY 1970 FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE " EXCEPTIONAL DAMAGE " ARISING FROM " IRREGULAR DEVELOPMENT OF HIS CAREER " AS WELL AS FOR " CAREER COMPENSATION " AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, FOR DAMAGES,

1 THE APPLICATION SEEKS THE ANNULMENT OF THE COMMUNICATION OF 21 MAY 1970 BY WHICH THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION REJECTED CERTAIN REQUESTS MADE BY THE APPLICANT IN RELATION TO HIS POSITION IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIS CAREER .
2 FURTHERMORE, THE COURT IS ASKED TO FIND PROVED THE EXCEPTIONAL DAMAGE WHICH THE APPLICANT CLAIMS HE HAS SUFFERED BY REASON OF THE COMMISSION' S ATTITUDE TOWARDS HIM AND TO DRAW THE CONSEQUENCES FROM THIS FINDING BY AWARDING HIM EITHER A " CAREER COMPENSATION " OR APPROPRIATE FINANCIAL DAMAGES .
3 THE COMMISSION, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 91 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, HAS ASKED THE COURT TO RULE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION WITHOUT GOING INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE .
4 THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DIFFERENT HEADS OF CLAIM MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT PRECEDED THE COMMUNICATION OF 21 MAY 1970, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE APPLICATION .
5 IT APPEARS FROM THE FILE THAT THE APPLICANT REPEATEDLY SUBMITTED HIS APPLICATION FOR VACANT POSTS WHICH WOULD HAVE ENTAILED HIS PROMOTION TO GRADE A3 BUT THAT HIS APPLICATIONS WERE NOT GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION .
6 MOREOVER, HE REPEATEDLY ADDRESSED REQUESTS TO THE COMMISSION RELATING TO THE CREATION OF AN INDEPENDENT DEPARTMENT IN HIS FIELD THE MANAGEMENT OF WHICH HE COULD HAVE ASSUMED UNDER CONDITIONS WHICH WOULD HAVE ENSURED HIS PROMOTION .
7 THE COMMISSION NEVERTHELESS DID NOT ACCEPT ANY OF THE PROPOSALS WHICH THE APPLICANT MADE ON THIS SUBJECT .
8 FACED WITH THE COMMISSION' S ATTITUDE TOWARDS HIM, THE APPLICANT, BY LETTER OF 16 FEBRUARY 1970, ASKED FOR THE AWARD OF COMPENSATION " FOR EXCEPTIONAL DAMAGE ARISING FROM THE IRREGULAR DEVELOPMENT OF CAREER " AND SECONDARILY FOR " THE TERMINATION IN A REASONABLE MANNER OF THE PRESENTLY CONTINUING DAMAGE BY WAY OF CAREER COMPENSATION " .
9 IN HIS REPLY OF 21 MAY 1970 THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION REMINDED THE APPLICANT OF THE FACT THAT IT IS FOR THE COMMISSION, AND FOR THE COMMISSION ALONE, TO DECIDE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF ITS DEPARTMENTS, THAT THE APPLICATIONS MADE BY HIM FOR SEVERAL POSTS OF HEAD OF DIVISION HAD BEEN EXAMINED UNDER THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS, THAT NO IRREGULARITY HAD BEEN FOUND IN THE PROCEDURES WHICH RESULTED IN THE APPOINTMENT OF OTHER APPLICANTS, AND FINALLY THAT PROMOTION TO GRADE A3 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A RIGHT AND THAT THE COMMISSION COULD NOT THEREFORE ACCEPT AS WELL FOUNDED THE REQUESTS FORMULATED IN THE LETTER OF 16 FEBRUARY 1970 .
10 ON THE ONE HAND THE PERIOD FOR BRINGING AN ACTION RELATING TO THE IMPLIED DECISION OF REJECTION, RESULTING FROM THE COMMISSION' S SILENCE ON THE APPLICANT' S LAST REQUEST DATED 16 FEBRUARY 1970 HAD EXPIRED BEFORE THE APPLICATION WAS MADE .
11 ON THE OTHER HAND BY ITS LETTER OF 21 MAY 1970 THE COMMISSION DID NO MORE THAN CONFIRM THE POSITION WHICH IT HAD PREVIOUSLY TAKEN ON THE APPLICATIONS WHICH THE APPLICANT HAD MADE ON THE PROPOSALS WHICH HE HAD MADE IN RELATION TO THE RE-ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENTS AND THE CREATION OF AN INDEPENDENT DEPARTMENT UNDER HIS AUTHORITY .
12 THIS COMMUNICATION DID NOT THEREFORE HAVE THE EFFECT OF CAUSING TIME TO RUN AFRESH IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF AN APPEAL TO THE COURT .
13 THE SECONDARY CONCLUSIONS FORMULATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING " CAREER COMPENSATION " OR A FINDING OF " EXCEPTIONAL DAMAGE " ARE ONLY DESIGNED TO OBTAIN FOR THE APPLICANT THE CAREER BENEFITS WHICH HAVE HITHERTO BEEN REFUSED TO HIM, OR THEIR EQUIVALENT IN THE FORM OF DAMAGES .
14 THESE HEADS OF THE APPLICATION MUST THEREFORE MEET THE SAME FATE AS THE PRINCIPAL CLAIM .
15 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE APPLICATION MUST BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE IN ITS ENTIRETY .

16 UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
17 THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN HIS APPLICATION .
18 NEVERTHELESS, UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS IN PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES .

THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION AS INADMISSIBLE .
2 . ORDERS THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .