X v Secretary-General of the OEEC (Decision No 19)

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Date: 10 January 1955
• Court: Appeals Board (Organization for European Economic Cooperation)

Appeals Board of the Organization for European Economic Co-operation.

Decision No. 19.

International organization — Officials — Administrative Tribunals — Decisions of — Rectification for erreur matérielle — Time-limits for bringing claims.

The Facts.—On November 30, 1954, Mr. X. lodged an appeal requesting the Board to re-examine the Decision of March 10, 1951,1 by which it had rejected his appeal against an administrative decision of January 5, 1951.

Held: that the appeal must be rejected. The appeal was receivable only in so far as it fell within the terms of Rule 5 (d) of the Board's Rules of Procedure, which provided for rectification of judicial decisions for erreur matérielle; the Board was bound to apply ex officio the limitations laid down in Rule 5 (d). Since Rule 5 (d) had not been duly published, time had not started running against the claimant and therefore his appeal was not out of time. In fact, however, the Board's Decision of March 10, 1951, was not vitiated by erreur matérielle.

The Board said: “Mr. X. has duly deposited the security provided for in Staff Rule 66 (d).

“Staff Rule 72 (a) lays down that ‘there shall be no appeal from’ the Board's decisions. The claimant, moreover, recognised this in his letter of November 29, 1954, and in his statement of claim of November 21, 1954; he stressed that he had not overlooked the fact that, from a technical point of view, a decision by the Appeals Board is final. This provision excludes re-examination on the merits of any appeal which has already been decided by the Appeals Board.

“However, on September 12, 1952, the Appeals Board drew up its own Rules of Procedure, acting under powers conferred on it by Staff Rule 65. According to Rule 5 (d) of the Rules of Procedure, any claimant may apply to the Board to rectify an erreur matérielle vitiating one of the grounds for a decision, when the mistake may have excercised an influence on the decision in the case, on condition that the application be lodged with the Appeals Board within a time-limit of two months from the date of notification of the decision impugned.

“It follows that Mr. X.'s appeal may not be considered unless it falls within the terms of the said Rule 5 (d) of the Rules of Procedure, which the Board must apply ex officio.

“The Board's Decision of March 10, 1951, was duly notified to the claimant on March 12, 1951, and no request for re-examination

was lodged until November 30, 1954. But, in order to fix the starting point for...