Halil and Fatos Sahinler v Commission of the European Communities. [1986] EUECJ C-297/84 (29 January 1986)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Halil and Fatos Sahinler v Commission of the European Communities. [1986] EUECJ C-297/84 (29 January 1986) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1986/C29784.html Cite as: [1986] EUECJ C-297/84 [ New search ] [ Help ] IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities . The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice . This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment. 61984O0297 Order of the Court of 29 January 1986. Halil and Fatos Sahinler v Commission of the European Communities. Inadmissibility. Case 297/84. European Court reports 1986 Page 00443 PROCEDURE - INDICATION OF AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN THE PLACE WHERE THE COURT HAS ITS SEAT - ABSENCE - REQUEST TO PUT THE APPLICATION IN ORDER NOT COMPLIED WITH - APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE ( RULES OF PROCEDURE , ART . 38 ( 2 ) AND ( 7 )) IN CASE 297/84 HALIL AND FATOS SAHINLER , REPRESENTED BY KLAUS DIETER DEUMELAND , RECHTSANWALT , BERLIN , APPLICANTS , V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY PETER GILSDORF , LEGAL ADVISER TO THE COMMISSION , ACTING AS AGENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF GEORGIOS KREMLIS , A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION ' S LEGAL DEPARTMENT , JEAN MONNET BUILDING , KIRCHBERG , DEFENDANT , APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION THAT COMMISSION LETTER NO 8908 OF 4 OCTOBER 1984 IS VOID AND FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT A DIRECTIVE , 1 BY AN APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 11 DECEMBER 1984 , THE APPLICANTS BROUGHT AN ACTION UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY FOR A DECLARATION THAT COMMISSION LETTER NO 8908 OF 4 OCTOBER 1984 IS VOID WITHOUT INDICATING IN THEIR APPLICATION AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN THE PLACE WHERE THE COURT HAS ITS SEAT , NAMELY LUXEMBOURG . 2 BY LETTER OF 11 DECEMBER 1984 , THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT , ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 38 ( 7 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , CALLED UPON THE APPLICANTS TO INDICATE AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG BY 3 JANUARY 1985 . 3 BY LETTER OF 28 DECEMBER 1984 , RECEIVED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 4 JANUARY 1985 , THE APPLICANTS STATED THAT THEY COULD NOT MEET THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND FOR THAT REASON COULD NOT GIVE THE NAME OF A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT SERVICE . IN THE SAME LETTER , THEY APPLIED FOR LEGAL AID UNDER ARTICLE 76 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE . 4 BY ORDER OF THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER ) OF 20 JUNE 1985 , THE APPLICANTS ' REQUEST FOR LEGAL AID WAS REFUSED . 5 BY LETTER OF 9 DECEMBER 1985 , THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT ONCE AGAIN CALLED UPON THE APPLICANTS TO INDICATE AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AND GAVE THEM UNTIL 31 DECEMBER 1985 TO PUT THE APPLICATION IN ORDER . IN A LETTER OF 14 DECEMBER 1985 THE APPLICANTS ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF THE REGISTRAR ' S LETTER OF 9 DECEMBER 1985 AND STATED THAT FOR FINANCIAL REASONS , THEY WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO PROVIDE AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG . 6 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 38 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE APPLICATION MUST STATE AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN THE PLACE WHERE THE COURT HAS ITS SEAT . ARTICLE 38 ( 7 ) OF THE SAME RULES PROVIDES THAT , IF AN APPLICATION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET OUT IN PARAGRAPHS ( 2 ) TO ( 6 ) OF ARTICLE 38 AND IF THE APPLICATION IS NOT PUT IN ORDER WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY THE REGISTRAR , THE COURT MAY REJECT THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND OF WANT OF FORM . 7 IN THIS CASE IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED FOR PUTTING THE APPLICATION IN ORDER , WHICH INITIALLY EXPIRED ON 3 JANUARY 1985 , WAS EXTENDED TO 31 DECEMBER 1985 BY LETTER OF 9 DECEMBER 1985 . THE APPLICANTS THUS HAD AMPLE TIME TO SELECT AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE . 8 AS REGARDS THE FINANCIAL GROUNDS WHICH , ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANTS , PREVENTED THEM FROM PROVIDING AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG , THOSE GROUNDS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED SINCE THE APPLICATION FOR LEGAL AID WAS REFUSED . 9 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE ACTION BROUGHT ON 11 DECEMBER 1984 MUST BE HELD TO BE INADMISSIBLE . 10 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . SINCE THE APPLICANTS HAVE FAILED IN THEIR SUBMISSIONS , THEY MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . ON THOSE GROUNDS , THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS : ( 1 ) THE APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE ; ( 2 ) THE CASE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER ; ( 3 ) THE APPLICANTS ARE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . © European Communities, 2001 All rights reserved BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1986/C29784.html