P.290
I - ADMISSIBILITY
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THE COURT TO GIVE AN INTERPRETATION OF POINT 3 OF THE OPERATIVE PART OF ITS JUDGMENT OF 8 JULY 1965 IN CASE 110/63, BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES .
( 1 ) THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THE COURT TO RULE THAT THE PERIOD REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH ( A ) OF THE SAID POINT 3 - THAT IS TO SAY, ' THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE TERMINATION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT BY REASON OF THE...DECISION ( ANNULLED BY THE JUDGMENT TO BE INTERPRETED ) AND NOTIFICATION TO HIM ( BY THE DEFENDANT ) OF A NEW DECISION ON THE QUESTION OF HIS INTEGRATION ' - ENDS ON 21 DECEMBER 1965 .
P.291
UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EAEC THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUE A JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY IT ' IF THE MEANING OR SCOPE ' OF THE JUDGMENT ' IS IN DOUBT '.
IN THE PRESENT CASE NO SUCH DIFFICULTY EXISTS BECAUSE THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THE PERIOD IN QUESTION ENDS ON 21 DECEMBER 1965 .
FURTHERMORE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST CONCERNS NOT THE MEANING OF THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 110/63, WHICH WAS UNABLE TO DECIDE UPON A DATE WHICH WAS NOT YET CERTAIN WHEN THAT JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED, BUT ITS APPLICATION TO A GIVEN SET OF FACTS .
THEREFORE THE REQUEST IS INADMISSIBLE .
( 2 ) THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THE COURT TO RULE THAT THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 110/63 ' DOES NOT ORDER THE APPLICANT TO PAY INTEREST ON EMOLUMENTS RECEIVED BY HIM FROM EMPLOYMENT OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY, AND BY REASON OF HIS DISMISSAL '.
THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT DENY THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS INTERPRETATION . THEREFORE THE ' MEANING OR SCOPE ' OF THE JUDGMENT IS NOT ' IN DOUBT ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE AFORESAID ARTICLE 41 .
IN SO FAR AS DIVERGENCES OF VIEW EXIST BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS TO THE DEFEDANT'S RIGHT TO DEDUCT CERTAIN SUMS FROM THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID TO THE APPLICANT, THESE ARE QUESTIONS WHICH CONCERN THE EXECUTION, AND NOT THE INTERPRETATION, OF THE JUDGMENT IN QUESTION .
THEREFORE THE REQUEST IS INADMISSIBLE .
( 3 ) THE APPLICANT ALSO COMPLAINS THAT THE DEFENDANT, IN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT WHICH IT WAS REQUIRED TO PAY TO HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 110/63, HAS DEDUCTED A SUM WHICH IT HAD PREVIOUSLY PAID TO HIM IN RESPECT OF UNTAKEN LEAVE . HOWEVER THE APPLICANT HAS NOT INCLUDED THIS COMPLAINT IN THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE ORIGINATING APPLICATION .
UNDER THE COMBINED PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 102 AND 38(D ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, AN APPLICATION FOR INTERPRETATION MUST CONTAIN THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE APPLICANT . SINCE THIS REQUIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN MET IN THIS CASE, AND SINCE NO VALID REASON JUSTIFYING THIS OMISSION HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD, THE PRESENT REQUEST IS NOT ADMISSIBLE .
( 4 ) FINALLY, THE APPLICANT ASKS THE COURT TO RULE ' THAT THE EMOLUMENTS DUE UNDER THE CONTRACT CONCLUDED BEFORE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, WHICH THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN ORDERED TO PAY TO THE APPLICANT FOR THE PERIOD DEFINED IN POINT 3(A ) OF THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT, MUST BE CALCULATED WITH REFERENCE TO GRADE A3 OF THE SALARY SCALE OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY IN FORCE DURING THE SAID PERIOD '.
P.292
AS AGAINST THIS THE DEFENDANT RAISES AN OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY, ARGUING FIRST THAT THE TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 110/63 IS NEITHER AMBIGUOUS NOR OBSCURE AND SECONDLY THAT THE PROBLEM NOW RAISED IS NOT DEALT WITH BY THE SAID JUDGMENT .
HOWEVER THE QUESTION WHETHER THE JUDGMENT TO BE INTERPRETED IS OR IS NOT AMBIGUOUS OR OBSCURE APPERTAINS TO THE EXAMINATION OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE APPLICATION . SO FAR AS ADMISSIBILITY IS CONCERNED, IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE APPLICANT ALLEGES THE EXISTENCE OF AN AMBIGUITY OR OF OBSCURITY . IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSERTIONS OF THE APPLICANT MAY BE INTERPRETED AS ALLEGING SUCH AMBIGUITY OR OBSCURITY .
FURTHERMORE IN HIS CONCLUSIONS IN CASE 110/63 THE APPLICANT CLAIMED AS A SUBSIDIARY MATTER THAT IF THE COURT, WHILST ANNULLING THE DECISION REFUSING TO INTEGRATE HIM, DID NOT RULE THAT HE MUST BE INTEGRATED, THEN IT SHOULD ORDER THE DEFENDANT TO PAY HIM ' REMUNERATION...APPROPRIATE TO HIS DUTIES ' AND TO DO SO ' UNTIL THE DEFENDANT TAKES A VALID DECISION CONCERNING HIS POSITION '.
IN ITS JUDGMENT IN CASE 110/63 THE COURT UPHELD
IN ITS JUDGMENT IN CASE 110/63 THE COURT UPHELD THESE SUBSIDIARY CONCLUSIONS .
THEREFORE THE PROBLEM NOW RAISED IS IN FACT ONE OF THOSE WHICH WAS DEALT WITH BY THE JUDGMENT WHOSE INTERPRETATION IS REQUESTED .
IT FOLLOWS FROM ALL THESE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE PRESENT REQUEST IS ADMISSIBLE .
II - SUBSTANCE OF THE APPLICATION
AS APPEARS FROM WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID UNDER I, THE SUBSTANCE OF THE APPLICATION NEED ONLY BE EXAMINED ON THE SUBJECT OF THE REQUEST CONCERNING THE CALCULATION OF THE EMOLUMENTS RESULTING FROM THE APPLICANT'S CONTRACT CONCLUDED BEFORE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE OPERATIVE PART OF A JUDGMENT IS OR IS NOT AMBIGUOUS OR OBSCURE, IT SHOULD BE READ TOGETHER WITH THE APPLICANT'S CONCLUSIONS AND THE STATEMENT OF THE GROUNDS OF THE SAID JUDGMENT .
POINT 3(A ) OF THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 110/63, IN WHICH THE PHRASE ' THE EMOLUMENTS DUE UNDER HIS CONTRACT CONCLUDED BEFORE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ' IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PRESENT REQUEST, UPHELD THE APPLICANT'S CONCLUSIONS CLAIMING THAT THE COURT SHOULD ' ORDER THE DEFENDANT TO PAY REMUNERATION TO THE APPLICANT APPROPRIATE TO HIS DUTIES, THAT IS, BF 45 502 NET PER MONTH ... '. THUS THE COURT WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO AWARD THE APPLICANT AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN THAT WHICH HE HIMSELF HAD SOUGHT .
FURTHERMORE, ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE STATEMENT OF THE GROUNDS OF THE SAID JUDGMENT : ' AS A RESULT OF THE ANNULMENT OF THE CONTESTED DECISION THE APPLICANT IS DEEMED TO BE STILL IN THE SERVICE OF THE DEFENDANT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS GOVERNING HIS CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT '. ACCORDINGLY, THE PART OF THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 110/63 CONSIDERED ABOVE IS NEITHER AMBIGUOUS NOR OBSCURE .
IF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WERE DIRECTED TO OBTAINING OTHER ADVANTAGES, IT WOULD BE A REQUEST CONCERNING THE CONTENT OF THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, AND HENCE CONCERNING A MATTER WITH WHICH THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 110/63 DID NOT DEAL .
THEREFORE IT CANNOT GIVE RISE TO AN INTERPRETATIVE JUDGMENT .
THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION HAS FAILED .
THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO THE COMBINED PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 69(2 ) AND 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, HE SHOULD BEAR THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS, EXCEPT THOSE INCURRED BY THE DEFENDANT . NEVERTHELESS IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICATION HAS ENABLED A MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT AND RECOGNIZED BY IT TO BE CORRECTED . THEREFORE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 69(3 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, IT IS PROPER TO AWARD COSTS AS SET OUT IN THE OPERATIVE PART OF THIS JUDGMENT .
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DECLARES THAT THE PRESENT APPLICATION HAS NOT SHOWN CAUSE WHY THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 110/63 SHOULD BE INTERPRETED;
2 . ORDERS THE DEFENDANT TO BEAR ITS OWN COSTS AND ONE-THIRD OF THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE APPLICANT, AND THE APPLICANT TO BEAR THE REMAINING TWO-THIRDS THEREOF .
