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) >> Jose Alvarez v European Parliament. [1983] EUECJ C-206/81 (29 September 1983)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1983/C20681_rev.html
Cite as: [1983] EUECJ C-206/81

[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.

61981O0206(01)
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 1983.
José Alvarez v European Parliament.
Interpretation.
Case 206/81 bis.
European Court reports 1983 Page 02865

PROCEDURE - INTERPRETATION OF JUDGMENT - CONDITIONS FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATION
( PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EEC , ART . 40 )

IN CASE 206/81 A
JOSE ALVAREZ , FORMERLY A PROBATIONARY OFFICIAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , RESIDING AT 83 RUE DE LA SEMOIS , LUXEMBOURG , REPRESENTED BY VICTOR BIEL , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE LATTER ' S CHAMBERS , 18 A RUE DES GLACIS ,
APPLICANT ,
V
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , REPRESENTED BY MARTIN SCHMIDT , DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS , ASSISTED BY ALEX BONN , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE LATTER ' S CHAMBERS , 22 COTE D ' EICH ,
DEFENDANT ,

APPLICATION FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN CASE 206/81 ,

1 BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY , MR ALVAREZ , FORMERLY A PROBATIONARY OFFICIAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , LODGED AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EEC FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1982 IN CASE 206/81 BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES (( 1982 ) ECR 3369 ).

2 IN THAT JUDGMENT , THE COURT ( THIRD CHAMBER ) ANNULLED THE DECISION BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY OF THE PARLIAMENT TO DISMISS MR ALVAREZ ON THE GROUND THAT THAT DECISION HAD BEEN TAKEN FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE THAT WAS NOT OF AN ADVERSARY NATURE , SINCE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS ON WHICH THE DECISION TO DISMISS THE APPLICANT HAD BEEN BASED HAD NOT BEEN COMMUNICATED TO HIM .

3 THE COURT ALSO REJECTED THE APPLICANT ' S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY DAMAGE WHICH WOULD NOT BE REMEDIED MERELY BY ANNULMENT OF THE DISMISSAL DECISION .

4 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FILE AND FROM THAT IN CASE 347/82 , PENDING BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES , THAT AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1982 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IMMEDIATELY COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT ALL THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO HIS PROBATIONARY PERIOD , WITH A REQUEST FOR HIS COMMENTS , AND SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED A NEW DECISION DISMISSING HIM . IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE PARLIAMENT PAID THE APPLICANT HIS SALARY IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE TWO DISMISSALS , BUT RESERVED THE RIGHT TO DEDUCT FROM THAT PAYMENT HIS INCOME FROM OTHER EMPLOYMENT DURING THE SAME PERIOD .

5 THE APPLICANT ASKS THE COURT FIRST TO DECIDE WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1982 ENTITLES HIM TO PAYMENT OF THE WHOLE OF HIS SALARY OR WHETHER AMOUNTS MAY BE DEDUCTED THEREFROM , SECONDLY , WHETHER THAT JUDGMENT REQUIRES THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO RE-ASSIGN HIM TO A POST AND FINALLY , WHETHER THE JUDGMENT ONCE AGAIN CONFERRED UPON HIM THE STATUS OF A PROBATIONARY OFFICIAL OR ELSE THAT OF AN ESTABLISHED OFFICIAL .

6 UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EEC , ' ' IF THE MEANING OR SCOPE OF A JUDGMENT IS IN DOUBT ' ' THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO CONSTRUE IT .

7 IT SHOULD BE NOTED FIRST THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT RAISED ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THE FACT THAT THE DECISION TO DISMISS HIM WAS ANNULLED AND THAT IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT THERE IS NO PROBLEM REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PART OF THE JUDGMENT RELATING TO THE ANNULMENT ITSELF , ESPECIALLY AS THE PARLIAMENT HAS ITSELF SHOWN BY THE CONCLUSIONS WHICH IT HAS DRAWN FROM THE JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1982 THAT IT CONSIDERS THE FIRST DISMISSAL AS NEVER HAVING EXISTED .

8 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES , IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT ' S CLAIMS DO NOT IN FACT CONCERN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT BUT RATHER THE CONSEQUENCES ARISING FROM THE FACT THAT THE FIRST DISMISSAL DECISION NO LONGER EXISTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES .

9 THE APPLICANT IS IN FACT ASKING THE COURT FIRST WHETHER THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 206/81 ENTITLES HIM TO THE WHOLE OF HIS SALARY AND ALLOWANCES OR WHETHER DEDUCTIONS MUST BE MADE CORRESPONDING TO THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY VIRTUE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION AS A RESULT OF HIS DISMISSAL .

10 SINCE THAT QUESTION DOES NOT CONCERN THE ANNULMENT OF THE DISMISSAL DECISION AS STATED ABOVE , IT DOES NOT RAISE ANY DOUBT CONCERNING ' ' THE MEANING OR SCOPE ' ' OF THE JUDGMENT TO BE CONSTRUED , WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 40 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EEC .
11 SUCH DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AS EXIST BETWEEN THE PARTIES REGARDING THE PARLIAMENT ' S RIGHT TO DEDUCT CERTAIN SUMS FROM THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE APPLICANT RELATE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION AND NOT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT IN QUESTION .

12 THE FIRST CLAIM IS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE .

13 SECONDLY , THE APPLICANT ASKS WHETHER THE ANNULMENT OF THE UNLAWFUL DISMISSAL , ON THE ONE HAND , IMPOSES ON THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY AN OBLIGATION TO RE-ASSIGN THE APPLICANT OR SOLELY TO PAY HIS SALARY FOR THE PERIOD FOLLOWING THE ANNULMENT AND , ON THE OTHER , ONCE AGAIN CONFERS UPON HIM THE STATUS OF A PROBATIONARY OFFICIAL OR ELSE THAT OF AN ESTABLISHED OFFICIAL .

14 THOSE QUESTIONS ALSO BEAR NO RELATION TO THE ANNULMENT ITSELF . IN SO FAR AS THEY RAISE PROBLEMS RELATING TO THE RE-ASSIGNMENT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE APPLICANT AS AN OFFICIAL , IT SHOULD ALSO BE STATED THAT THOSE PROBLEMS WERE NOT RAISED IN CASE 206/81 AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THEY DID NOT FORM PART OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE JUDGMENT IN THAT CASE .

15 THOSE APPLICATIONS ARE THEREFORE ALSO INADMISSIBLE .

COSTS
16 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS IF THEY HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR IN THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY ' S PLEADING . HOWEVER , UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , COSTS INCURRED BY THE INSTITUTIONS IN APPLICATIONS BY OFFICIALS OF THE COMMUNITIES ARE TO BE BORNE BY THE INSTITUTIONS THEMSELVES .

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )
HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :
1 . THE APPLICATION FOR INTERPRETATION IS DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE ;

2 . THE PARTIES ARE TO PAY THEIR OWN COSTS .