Chehab Razzouk and Abbas Beydoun v European Commission (75/82, 117/82)

2. Case 117/82 (Mr Beydoun)

The Commission considers that this application is inadmissible because the applicant should have submitted a complaint to the appointing authority against the implied rejection of his claim for a survivor's pension of 16 July 1980 before 17 February 1981, the implied decision being presumed to have been taken on 16 November 1980. However, the applicant did not submit his complaint until 9 September 1981, following the express rejection of his claim on 12 August 1981. The express rejection was merely confirmation of the implied rejection of 16 November 1980 and could not cause time to start running again in favour of the applicant, all the more so as the time-limits are a matter of public policy (see judgment of the Court of 8 May 1973, Case 33/72, Gunnelia v Commission, [1973] ECR 475).The inadmissibility of the main claim automatically entails the inadmissibility of the alternative claim for reimbursement of the pension contributions paid by the applicant's wife during her lifetime.The applicant does not accept that the application is inadmissible and points out, in his reply, that his claim of 16 July 1980 was followed by a long exchange of correspondence and by several interviews with officials of the Commission. Furthermore, discussions with a view to finding an appropriate solution to his claim took place between officials of the commission and of other institutions in the framework of the Preparatory Committee for Meetings of Heads of Administrative services. The general atmosphere of these discussions was fairly positive and constructive and showed a willingness to help him. In reply to a question which the Court put to the parties, Mr Beydoun also points out that, in spite of the many interviews which took place between November 1980 and June 1981, those responsible at the Commission never informed him of the implied rejection of his claim, as the Commission contends in its rejoinder.On that basis, the applicant's claim should be regarded as coming within the first paragraph of Article 25 of the Statt Regulations. Even though, taken literally, that provision applies only to officials, it should be interpreted by analogy as also covering his case. The Commission's reply of 12 August 1981 would therefore constitute the sole basis of the application, which would then meet the requirements of Article 91 (2).The Commission states in its rejoinder that the Preparatory Committee for Meetings of Heads of Administrative Services, and later the heads of administrative services, dealt, at its initiative, with the general question of the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 23 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and, in particular, with the interpretation of the expression “provided that he has no income of his own” and with the concept of invalidity. The Committee considered that the provision in question did not apply to the widower of an official who, being 66 years old at the time of his wife's death, was suffering from invalidity and had only a small income, because the term “invalidity”, as used in that article, referred to an invalidity incapacitating the person concerned from engaging in gainful employment, and not an invalidity due to age, and because, at the age of 66, the person concerned was no longer available for employment.As regards the rest of the application, the Commission does not understand why the applicant wishes to have his claim for a pension of 16 July 1980 treated as a request under the first paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations. It considers that, even if this classification were correct, there would be no difference as far as admissibility is concerned. Such a classification would not change the procedural rules and it would not alter the fact that the applicant should have submitted a complaint to the appointing authority before 17 February 1981. The Commission therefore continues to maintain that Mr Beydoun's application is inadmissible.