ECLI:EU:C:1981:228•Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 1981. # Jakob Flamm v Commission and Council of the European Communities. # Case 567/79 A.
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 1981. # Jakob Flamm v Commission and Council of the European Communities. # Case 567/79 A.
ECLI:EU:C:1981:228Eu CjeuOct 14, 1981
Full text
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 567/79 A
JAKOB FLAMM , RESIDING IN THE VIA GRAZIA DELLEDDA , RANCO ( VARESE ), ITALY , REPRESENTED BY B . POTTHAST AND H.-J . RUBER , OF THE COLOGNE BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF V . BIEL , 18A , RUE DES GLACIS ,
APPLICANT ,
V
1 . COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY J . PIPKORN , A MEMBER OF ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT , ACTING AS AGENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF O . MONTALTO , JEAN MONNET BUILDING , KIRCHBERG ,
2.COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER , J . CARBERY , ACTING AS AGENT , ASSISTED BY TITO GALLAS , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF D . FONTEIN , DIRECTOR OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK , KIRCHBERG ,
DEFENDANTS ,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION CHALLENGING THE TERMS FOR REPAYMENT OF BUILDING LOANS GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION , AS AMENDED BY THE LATTER AS FROM APRIL 1979 ON THE BASIS OF COUNCIL REGULATION NO 3085/78 AND NO 3086/78 OF 21 DECEMBER 1978 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 369 , PP . 6 AND 8 ),
Grounds
THE COUNCIL IS NEITHER THE APPLICANT ' S APPOINTING AUTHORITY NOR A PARTY TO THE LOAN CONTRACT , WHICH REFERS SOLELY TO THE COMMISSION AND THE APPLICANT . THE COUNCIL CANNOT THEREFORE BE PARTY TO THIS ACTION , A VIEW WHICH IS SHARED BY THE APPLICANT HIMSELF . THE APPLICANT HAS NOT ASKED TO DISCONTINUE THE ACTION .
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER ) HOLDS THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO OPEN THE ORAL PROCEDURE .
THE APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE IN SO FAR AS IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE COUNCIL AND MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
Decision on costs
COSTS
ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
HOWEVER , ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE STATES THAT IN ACTIONS BROUGHT BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES THE INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )
HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :
1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE IN SO FAR AS IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE COUNCIL .
2 . THE APPLICANT AND THE COUNCIL SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.