Keywords
Summary

Keywords

++++

1.Officials - Decision adversely affecting an official - Decisions concerning the exercise of trade-union rights

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Art . 24a )

2.Officials - Action - Interest in bringing an action - Action for the annulment of a decision concerning the applicant' s performance of union duties - Admissibility

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Art . 91 )

3.Action for annulment - Action directed against a confirmatory decision - Inadmissibility - Condition - Application to staff cases

( EEC Treaty, Art . 173; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art . 91 )

4.Officials - Action - Procedure - Action brought by a trade-union organization - Inadmissibility

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Art . 91 )

5.Procedure - Time-limits - Mandatory nature - Action brought by a legal person - Introduction conditional on valid resolution of competent body - No effect on starting point of period for bringing proceedings

6.Action for annulment - Time-limits - Starting point - Notification - Concept - Burden of proof of notification

( EEC Treaty, Art . 173, third paragraph, and Art . 191 )

Summary

1.Decisions concerning the conditions under which officials may exercise trade-union rights affect the exercise of the right recognized by Article 24a of the Staff Regulations . Such decisions therefore produce legal effects and cannot be regarded as mere measures of internal organization .

2.An official who is a trade-union officer has, in that capacity, an interest in bringing proceedings against a decision affecting the conditions under which he must exercise his trade-union duties within the institution even if that decision is addressed to the trade-union organization to which he belongs and does not concern him exclusively .

3.An action for the annulment of a confirmatory decision, whether based on Article 173 of the Treaty or on Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, is inadmissible only if the confirmed decision has become final vis-à-vis the person concerned without any action having been brought before the Court within the prescribed period . Otherwise, the person concerned is entitled to contest either the confirmed decision or the confirmatory decision or both .

4.A trade-union organization cannot bring an action under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations since the remedy provided by that article is available only to officials and other servants of the Communities and not to trade-union organizations .

5.Time-limits for instituting proceedings are mandatory and it is not for the parties to determine them at their own convenience . Accordingly, whilst it is true that a legal person' s right to bring legal proceedings may in particular be subject to the existence of a resolution validly adopted by the body thereof empowered to decide on such a course, the starting point of the period for bringing an action cannot vary according to the internal rules or practices of the legal person concerned and therefore cannot be fixed as the day on which the competent body, duly constituted, validly takes cognizance of the decision to be contested .

6.Although a decision is properly notified within the meaning of Article 191 of the Treaty if it reaches the addressee and puts the latter in a position to take cognizance of it, it is the responsibility of the party alleging that an application is out of time, having regard to the time-limit laid down in the third paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty for bringing an action for annulment, to prove on what date the decision was notified .