X v Secretary-General of the OEEC (Decision No 23)

JurisdictionEuropean Union
Date21 December 1955
CourtAppeals Board (Organization for European Economic Cooperation)
Appeals Board of the Organization for European Economic Co-operation.
Decision No. 23.

International organization — Officials — Administrative Tribunals — Procedure — Nullity of decisions — Grounds for rectification — Erreur matérielle and error of judicial procedure.

The Facts.—Mr. X. lodged an appeal on February 25, 1955, requesting the Board: (i) to declare null and void its Decision of January 10, 1955,1 by which the Board rejected, on the merits, an appeal lodged on November 30, 1954, by the claimant to obtain the revision of the Board's Decision of March 10, 1951;2 and (ii) to carry out a new examination of the Decision of March 10, 1951, by which the Board rejected an appeal brought against the decision taken by the Head of the Personnel Division on January 5, 1951, refusing to grant the claimant the benefit of the residence allowance provided for in Staff Rule 21 (b).

Held: (i) that Decision No. 19 was not vitiated by any error of judicial procedure capable of invalidating it; and (ii) that Decision No. 11 was not vitiated by any erreur matérielle.

The Board said: “Faced with identical requests for adjournment presented by the Administration and by the claimant, the Appeals Board, by a Decision of June 7, 1955,3 fixed new procedural time-limits for the hearing of the appeal lodged by Mr. X. on February 25, 1955. The hearing had to be adjourned again, as a

result of the impossibility of convoking the Board before September 15, 1955, in accordance with paragraph (c) of the Board's Decision of June 7, 1955. The time-limits laid down by Rule 2 (c) of the Appeals Board's Rules of Procedure, however, have been duly observed

“Mr. X.'s appeal is receivable from a procedural point of view, and the security provided for in Staff Rule 66 (d) has been deposited in full.

“The claimant challenged the Board's composition in his statement of claim. In a preliminary hearing, the Board examined this objection in accordance with Rule 4 (c) of its Rules of Procedure,1 and held that it was properly constituted according to the conditions laid down by Staff Rule 69. In addition, during the hearing the claimant developed his arguments of fact and law at some length, without expressly renewing his reservations as to the Board's composition.

“I.—As regards the first head of his claim, requesting the Board to declare its Decision of January 10, 1955, null and void, the claimant invokes the fact that he had no knowledge of Rule 5 (d) of the Board's Rules of Procedure of September 12, 1954, and that consequently his appeal of November 30, 1954, could not be regarded, nor treated, as a claim for the rectification of an erreur matérielle. He also argues that the Appeals Board violated various rules of procedure.

“In his present appeal, lodged on February 22, 1955, Mr. X. argues that his appeal of November 30, 1954, formally lodged with the Board's Secretariat on that date...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT