Съд - първи състав

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL LAGRANGE DELIVERED ON 11 MARCH 1964 ( 1 ) Mr President, Members of the Court, Miss Capitaine, a secretary at the Joint Nuclear Research Centre at Ispra, was recruited by the Euratom Commission following a letter of engagement of 2 March 1960 and was thereby made subject to the system of so-called Brussels contracts. Following her marriage on 6 May 1961 to another servant of the institution, Mr Marcillat, a decision of 14 June 1961 withdrew her separation allowance which she had received until then by virtue of her contract. By an application lodged at the Registry on 22 June 1963 she contested this decision as well as several subsequent decisions confirming it either expressly or by implication. It should be borne in mind that during the intervening period, in February 1963, the applicant became established as an official in accordance with the Staff Regulations. As you know, the Commission disputes the admissibility of the application, alleging that it is out of time. That is the first issue which I must examine. A — Admissibility According to the defendant the appeal was filed outside the prescribed time-limit in relation to the decision of 14 June 1961 and, moreover, this time-limit could not ‘start to run afresh’ following the subsequent decisions, express or implied, as the latter merely ‘confirmed’ the first decision. First question: Had the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the decision of 14 June 1961 expired? The two parties both recognize — this is ... Прочетете още

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL LAGRANGE DELIVERED ON 4 MARCH 1964 ( 1 ) Mr President, Members of the Court, In this rather complicated case — that is the least that one can say — I shall refrain from relating the progress of Mr Collotti's career from the beginning, first, because it is quite clear that you are well acquainted with the career of one of the most eminent officials of the Court, and, secondly, because this historical review is in any event irrelevant to the examination of the alternative conclusions which I shall examine in due course. The principal conclusions relate exclusively to the conditions on which the applicant's classification was effected in the scale of the new Staff Regulations, taking into account his position under the Regulations at 31 December 1961, that is to say, Grade L/A, second additional step, with 2 years' seniority at that step, which was moreover the highest in its grade and of all the Language Department. A — Principal Conclusions The contested decision is a decision of the Court dated 14 March 1963 classifying the person concerned at Grade L/A 3, Step 5, of the new Staff Regulations, from 1 January 1962 (with the next step due on 1 July 1962). There is no difficulty with regard to the grade: this is purely and simply an application of Annex X to the new Staff Regulations of the EEC (corresponding to Article 102 of the Common Staff Regulations of the EEC and EAEC), which provides ... Прочетете още