Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Procedure — Decision replacing, in the course of the proceedings, the contested decision — Replacement of a decision refusing the reinstallation allowance by a decision granting it but operating a set-off against allowances wrongly received by the applicant — Different subject-matter — Extension of the initial claims for relief and pleadings — Not permitted

2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea put forward for the first time in the appeal — Inadmissible — (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 42(1), first subpara.)

Summary

1. An applicant may amend his heads of claim and pleas in law following the replacement by a decision, in the course of the proceedings, of a previous decision with the same subject-matter.

That is not the case if the contested decision is one refusing the reinstallation allowance and if, in the course of the proceedings, it is replaced by a decision granting it to the applicant but also requiring him to repay sums wrongly paid to him in respect of the installation allowance. The decision replacing the contested decision does not have the same subject-matter since it establishes a set-off between the amount overpaid to the applicant and that of the sums due to him. It follows therefrom that in such a case the applicant should not be given leave to amend his claims and pleas.

see paras 29-30

2. To allow a party to put forward for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea in law which it has not raised before the Court of First Instance would be to allow it to bring before the former, whose jurisdiction in appeals is limited, a case of wider ambit than that which came before the Court of First Instance. In an appeal the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is confined to review of the findings of law on the pleas argued before the Court of First Instance.

see para. 37