Avis juridique important

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 1966. - Jean Moreau v Commission of the EAEC. - Joined cases 15-64 and 60-65. European Court reports French edition Page 00663 Dutch edition Page 00664 German edition Page 00686 Italian edition Page 00624 English special edition Page 00459 Danish special edition Page 00319 Greek special edition Page 00467 Portuguese special edition Page 00519

Summary Parties Subject of the case Grounds Decision on costs Operative part

++++

1 . OFFICIALS - INTEGRATION UNDER THE STATE REGULATIONS - AIMS OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EAEC, ARTICLE 102 )

2 . OFFICIALS - CONTRACTUAL SERVANTS - APPLICATION OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS TO SUCH PERSONS - REVALUATION OF POST - AUTOMATIC TRANSFER OF THE STEP IN THE NEW GRADE - NOT PERMISSIBLE - APPLICATION BY ANALOGY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE PROMOTION OF OFFICIALS

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EAEC, ARTICLE 102 )

1 . THE OBJECT OF ARTICLE 102 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IS TO ENSURE THAT CONTRACTUAL SERVANTS, WHO ARE INTEGRATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAID REGULATIONS, KEEP THE POSITION WHICH THEY PREVIOUSLY OCCUPIED, BY THE ALMOST AUTOMATIC TRANSFERENCE TO THE TABLE SET OUT IN ARTICLE 66 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE GRADE AND STEP ' EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY ' ACCORDED THEM BEFORE THE STAFF REGULATIONS WERE APPLIED TO THEM .

2 . IF THE POST OF A CONTRACTUAL SERVANT ENGAGED DURING THE PERIOD BEFORE THE STAFF REGULATIONS ENTERED INTO FORCE HAS BEEN REVALUED BY THE REGULATIONS, THE STEP IN THE PREVIOUS GRADE OF THAT SERVANT, WHEN HE IS INTEGRATED, CANNOT AUTOMATICALLY BE TRANSFERRED TO HIS NEW GRADE . IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE STEP IN THE NEW GRADE THE ADMINISTRATION MUST BE GUIDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE PROMOTION OF OFFICIALS .

IN JOINED CASES 15/64 AND 60/65

JEAN MOREAU, AN OFFICIAL OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED AND ASSISTED BY MARCEL SLUSNY, ADVOCATE AT THE COUR D' APPEL, BRUSSELS, LECTURER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BRUSSELS, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF BERNARD SCHMITZ, 6 RUE J.B . ESCH,

APPLICANT,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, JEAN GIJSSELS, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE SECRETARIAT OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, 2 PLACE DE METZ,

DEFENDANT,

APPLICATIONS HAVING AS THEIR PRINCIPAL OBJECTS :

- CASE 15/64 : THE ANNULMENT OF THE IMPLIED DECISION OF REFUSAL TO CLASSIFY THE APPLICANT IN GRADE A3;

- CASE 60/65 : THE ANNULMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL DECISION OF 14 SEPTEMBER 1965 DETERMINING THE STEP OF THE APPLICANT IN GRADE A3,

P.465

ADMISSIBILITY

THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION AND THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR THE COURT TO RAISE THE MATTER OF ITS OWN MOTION .

P.466

THE APPLICATIONS ARE ADMISSIBLE .

THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE

CASE 15/64

FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION OF 13 JANUARY 1965 ASSIGNING THE APPLICANT GRADE A3 THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS OF THE APPLICATION NO LONGER HAVE ANY PURPOSE .

DURING THE ORAL PROCEDURE THE APPLICANT STATED THAT HE DID NOT INTEND TO MAINTAIN HIS CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR NON-MATERIAL DAMAGE .

THEREFORE THIS CASE NEED ONLY BE EXAMINED FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING A DECISION AS TO COSTS .

CASE 60/65

THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT BEFORE THE STAFF REGULATIONS WERE APPLIED TO HIM HE HAD BY IMPLICATION BEEN ACCORDED GRADE A3, STEP 4 .

ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT THE GRADE ACCORDED HIM BY IMPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 102 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IS THE GRADE CORRESPONDING TO THE DUTIES PERFORMED BY HIM DURING THE PERIOD BEFORE THE STAFF REGULATIONS ENTERED INTO FORCE ACCORDING TO THE LATER ASSESSMENT OF THE GRADE UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS .

THE OBJECT OF ARTICLE 102 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IS TO ENSURE THAT CONTRACTUAL SERVANTS, WHO ARE INTEGRATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAID REGULATIONS, KEEP THE POSITION WHICH THEY PREVIOUSLY OCCUPIED, BY THE ALMOST AUTOMATIC TRANSFERENCE TO THE TABLE SET OUT IN ARTICLE 66 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE GRADE AND STEP ' EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY ' ACCORDED THEM BEFORE THE STAFF REGULATIONS WERE APPLIED TO THEM .

ON THE OTHER HAND IT IS ONLY POSSIBLE TO ENSURE THAT THE DUTIES PERFORMED CORRESPOND TO THE GRADE BY REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF ANNEX I TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND TO THE DEFINITION REFERRED TO IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 5 .

IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT BEFORE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE NEW STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS THE APPLICANT'S SALARY HAD BEEN FIXED WITH REFERENCE TO THE SALARY-SCALE OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS FOR OFFICIALS OF THE ECSC, AT THE SALARY CORRESPONDING TO GRADE A4, STEP 4, OF THAT SALARY-SCALE .

IT IS NOT THEREFORE TRUE THAT THE APPLICANT HAD ALREADY BEEN ACCORDED GRADE A3, STEP 4, BEFORE THE STAFF REGULATIONS WERE APPLIED TO HIM .

P.467

THEREFORE THIS SUBMISSION IS UNFOUNDED .

THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT HE HAS IN ANY EVENT THE RIGHT TO KEEP IN THE NEW GRADE ACCORDED AS A RESULT OF THE REVALUATION OF HIS POST UNDER THE NEW STAFF REGULATIONS THE STEP WHICH HE WAS ASSIGNED IN HIS PREVIOUS GRADE .

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC REFERENCE IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS TO THIS SITUATION, THE APPLICATION OF THE CRITERION OF THE SIMPLE TRANSFERENCE OF THE STEP TO THE NEW GRADE WOULD BE UNDERSTANDABLE IF THE PREVIOUS CLASSIFICATION OF THE POST WERE GOVERNED BY THE PREVIOUS STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE ECSC OR COVERED ONLY ONE GRADE .

IN FACT UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS THE ASSIGNMENT OF A STEP IS GOVERNED BY PRECISE AND UNIFORM RULES .

ON THE OTHER HAND UNDER THE SYSTEM OF CONTRACTUAL ENGAGEMENTS APPLIED TO THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE NEW STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS THE RULES FOR DETERMINING THE STEP IN A GRADE WERE NOT SO STRICT .

THE IMPLIED ASSIGNMENT OF A HIGH STEP IN A CERTAIN GRADE WITHOUT BEING IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE SENIORITY IN THE SERVICE OR EXPERIENCE OF THE SERVANT COULD IN PARTICULAR HAVE BEEN INTENDED TO ENABLE HIM TO BE GIVEN, HAVING REGARD TO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, THE DESIRED LEVEL OF REMUNERATION .

IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPLICATION TO SUCH CASES OF THE CRITERION OF THE AUTOMATIC TRANSFERENCE OF A STEP WOULD RISK DISCRIMINATING AGAINST OFFICIALS SUBJECT TO THE PREVIOUS STAFF REGULATIONS .

ON THE OTHER HAND THE APPLICATION OF THIS CRITERION TO THE APPLICANT, WHO HAD BY IMPLICATION BEEN ACCORDED A HIGH STEP IN A LOWER GRADE OF A CAREER BRACKET COVERING TWO GRADES, WOULD ALSO BE LIKELY TO BENEFIT HIM UNJUSTLY IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER SERVANTS ENGAGED UNDER A ' BRUSSELS ' CONTRACT AND PERFORMING THE SAME DUTIES AND WHO HAD BEEN BY IMPLICATION CLASSIFIED AT A LOWER STEP BUT IN A HIGHER GRADE .

THEREFORE THE CRITERION SUGGESTED BY THE APPLICANT CANNOT BE UPHELD .

THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COMMISSION ADOPTED THE CORRECT METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE STEP ASSIGNED TO THE APPLICANT REMAINS TO BE DECIDED .

UNDER THE SYSTEM OF CONTRACTUAL ENGAGEMENTS THE IMPLIED ASSIGNMENT OF STEPS BY REFERENCE TO THE SALARY-SCALE UNDER THE ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS WAS MAINLY DETERMINED BY THE LEVEL OF REMUNERATION .

THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE STEP IN THE NEW GRADE, IT IS APPROPRIATE, AS THE REGULATIONS ARE SILENT ON THIS POINT, TO BE GUIDED BY A CRITERION WHICH TAKES ACCOUNT PRINCIPALLY OF THE SALARY ATTAINED PREVIOUSLY .

ARTICLE 46 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE PROMOTION OF OFFICIALS LAYS DOWN PRECISE RULES EXPRESSLY DESIGNED TO AVOID ANY DISCRIMINATION IN SALARIES BETWEEN OFFICIALS MOVING UP FROM A LOWER TO A HIGHER GRADE .

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS APPLYING PRECISELY TO THE CASE IN QUESTION, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ACCEPT THAT THIS PROVISION MAY PROPERLY BE APPLIED BY ANALOGY TO THE APPLICANT .

THEREFORE THE APPLICANT'S SUBMISSION IS UNFOUNDED .

UNDER ARTICLE 69(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . HOWEVER, UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS IN ACTIONS BY OFFICIALS OF THE COMMUNITIES .

IN CASE 15/64 THE DEFENDANT ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THE APPLICANT'S CLAIM TO BE ASSIGNED GRADE A3 .

THE DEFENDANT HAS THEREFORE ADMITTED BY IMPLICATION THE MAIN SUBMISSION IN THE APPLICATION .

ON THE OTHER HAND DURING THE ORAL PROCEDURE THE APPLICANT WITHDREW HIS CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR NON-MATERIAL DAMAGE .

IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE DEFENDANT MUST BEAR THE COSTS OF THE ACTION UP TO NOTIFICATION OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION OF 13 JANUARY 1965 .

ON THE OTHER HAND THE APPLICANT MUST BEAR ANY COSTS INCURRED BY HIM RELATING TO THE PERIOD AFTER THE DATE OF THAT NOTIFICATION .

AS IN CASE 60/65 THE APPLICANT FAILED IN ALL HIS SUBMISSIONS HE MUST THEREFORE BEAR HIS OWN COSTS .

THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )

HEREBY :

1 . DECLARES THAT APPLICATION 15/64 NO LONGER HAS ANY PURPOSE;

2 . DISMISSES APPLICATION 60/65 AS UNFOUNDED;

3 . ORDERS THE DEFENDANT TO PAY THE COSTS INCURRED IN APPLICATION 15/64 UP TO THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION OF 13 JANUARY 1965 AND ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO BEAR THE COSTS INCURRED BY HIM AFTER THAT DATE .

4 . ORDERS THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS IN APPLICATION 60/65 .