Avis juridique important

Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 November 1980. - Margherita Hebrant, née Macevicius v European Parliament. - Case 141/80. European Court reports 1980 Page 03509

Summary Parties Subject of the case Grounds Operative part

OFFICIALS - APPLICATIONS TO THE COURT - ACT ADVERSELY AFFECTING AN OFFICIAL - CONCEPT - MEASURES RELATING TO THE DRAWING UP OF THE BUDGET OF AN INSTITUTION - EXCLUSION

( STAFF REGULATIONS , ARTS 90 ( 2 ) AND 91 ( 1 ))

THE PROPOSALS AND DECISIONS OF THE COMPETENT DEPARTMENTS OF AN INSTITUTION RELATING TO THE DRAWING UP OF ITS BUDGET ARE NOT CAPABLE OF AFFECTING THE POSITION OF OFFICIALS UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND CONSEQUENTLY CANNOT CONSTITUTE DECISIONS ADVERSELY AFFECTING OFFICIALS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 90 ( 2 ) AND 91 ( 1 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .

IN CASE 141/80

MARGHERITA HEBRANT , NEE MACEVICIUS , AN OFFICIAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , REPRESENTED BY VICTOR BIEL OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR , WHOSE CHAMBERS ARE AT 18 A RUE DES GLACIS , LUXEMBOURG ,

APPLICANT ,

V

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , REPRESENTED BY F . PASETTI-BOMBARDELLA ACTING AS AGENT , KIRCHBERG , LUXEMBOURG , ASSISTED BY A . BONN OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR ,

DEFENDANT ,

APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF A RECOMMENDATION FOR PROMOTION ,

ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 91 ( 3 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , AFTER THE OTHER PARTY HAS PUT FORWARD HIS SUBMISSIONS ON THE SAID OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY AND THE GROUNDS FOR THEM , THE REMAINDER OF THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE OBJECTION ARE TO BE ORAL UNLESS THE COURT DECIDES OTHERWISE . THE COURT CONSIDERS THAT IN THIS CASE IT HAS SUFFICIENT INFORMATION AND THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR IT TO OPEN THE ORAL PROCEDURE .

THE ACTION IS PATENTLY INADMISSIBLE .

IN SO FAR AS THE OBJECT OF THE ACTION IS THE ANNULMENT OF MEMORANDA BY MR TAYLOR AS WELL AS REPORTS BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL AND THE PARLIAMENT ' S COMMITTEE ON BUDGETS , IT IS NOT DIRECTED AGAINST DECISIONS OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WHICH CONSTITUTE ACTS ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE APPLICANT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 91 ( 1 ) AND 90 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . THE PROPOSALS AND DECISIONS OF THE COMPETENT DEPARTMENTS OF THE PARLIAMENT RELATING TO THE DRAWING UP OF THE BUDGET ARE NOT CAPABLE OF AFFECTING THE POSITION OF THE APPLICANT OR MR REID UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS . EVEN SUPPOSING THAT SUCH PROPOSALS AND DECISIONS HAD , AS THE APPLICANT ALLEGES , THE SOLE OBJECT OF IMPLEMENTING THE PROMOTION OF MR REID TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE APPLICANT , THOSE MEASURES WOULD , NEVERTHELESS , MERELY CONSTITUTE PURELY PREPARATORY ACTS TO THAT INTENT , WHICH CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT OF AN ACTION .

THE PUBLICATION OF VACANCY NOTICE NO 2677 FOR THE POST OF HEAD OF THE REFERENCE , INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION DIVISION WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE BRINGING OF THE ACTION . THE VACANCY NOTICE WAS NOT THE SUBJECT OF A PRIOR COMPLAINT ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT . CONSEQUENTLY IT CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT OF THE ACTION .

IN SO FAR AS THE ACTION SEEKS IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE PROMOTION OF THE APPLICANT AT THE SAME TIME AS THAT OF MR REID , IT MUST BE HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY APPLICATION FOR THAT PURPOSE , SUCH PROMOTION HAS NOT BEEN THE SUBJECT OF AN EXPRESS OR IMPLIED DECISION OF REJECTION ON THE PART OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 90 ( 1 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .

THE ACTION MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .

PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 69 ( 2 ) AND 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE PARTIES MUST BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

THE COURT ( THIRD CHAMBER ),

UPON HEARING THE OPINION OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL ,

HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :

1 . THE ACTION IS DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE .

2 . THE PARTIES SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .