Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Appeal - Admissibility - Assessment in relation to the case at issue - Institution which intervened at first instance and was unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions - Sufficient condition

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 49)

2. Officials - Termination of service - Release - Measure requiring a specific legal basis - Council Regulation No 2688/95 authorising the European Parliament to adopt measures to release its staff - Actions of officials of the Court of Justice pleading, by way of an objection, that Regulation No 2688/95 is unlawful - Inadmissible

(Council Regulation No 2688/95)

Summary

1. The conditions governing the admissibility of appeals laid down by Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice and the corresponding provisions of the ECSC and Euratom Statutes are assessed in relation to the case at issue and that alone. The fact that the grounds of a decision of the Court of First Instance which is stated to have become definitive uphold an objection of illegality raised against a legislative measure does not prevent an appellant who has entered an admissible appeal from contesting the illegality of the same regulation in other proceedings.

It is also clear from the second paragraph of Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice and the corresponding provisions of the ECSC and Euratom Statutes that, if an institution which intervened at first instance was unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions, that is sufficient for it to be entitled to bring an appeal before the Court of Justice.

( see paras 22-23 )

2. Termination-of-service measures, such as those which were permitted by Council Regulation No 2688/95, do not have their legal origin in the Staff Regulations and therefore do not constitute a standard event in the careers of the persons concerned. Such measures to release staff must, on the contrary, be regarded as a practice to which the Community has resorted in specific cases in the interest of the proper functioning of its institutions.

It follows, first, that a request to be entered on a list of persons having expressed their interest in such a measure presupposes the existence of a specific and lawful legislative provision which supplies a legal basis for it and, second, that even if there is such a provision, the institution concerned is not obliged either to grant the requests submitted to it or to make even partial use of the power conferred on it to decide to terminate the service of some of its officials.

Since Council Regulation No 2688/95 authorised only the European Parliament to adopt measures to release staff and cannot therefore provide a legal basis for the requests of officials of other institutions, the Court of First Instance was wrong to declare admissible an objection of illegality raised by officials of the Court of Justice against that regulation in proceedings for the annulment of a decision of the appointing authority rejecting their requests to be entered on the list of officials interested in measures for their release. The legality of the appointing authority's replies cannot be affected by any defects in a regulation not applying to the Court of Justice.

( see paras 28-34 )