C-20/63
ECLI:EU:C:1964:16
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61963CJ0020
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 19 MARCH 1964
Jean Maudet
v Commission of the European Economic Community
Joined Cases 20 and 21/63
Summary
1. Officials — Establishment under the Staff Regulations — Grade of establishment
(EEC Staff Regulations, Article 102(1))
2. Officials — Correspondence of grade to post — Obligation to consider this factor after
establishment under the Staff Regulations
(EEC Staff Regulations, Article 102, Annex I)
1. Within the meaning of Article 102 (1) 2. Any servant who, after establishment of the Staff Regulations of the EEC, under the Staff Regulations, was
servants are to be established under maintained in an already existing those Regulations in the grade and at post which, in the light of the duties
which it involved, should correspond the step impliedly accorded them before the Regulations entered into under the new Staff Regulations to a force, without its being necessary higher grade than that obtained in
during this first phase of the estab accordance with the procedure re
lishment of servants under the Staff ferred to in Article 102, is entitled to
Regulations to take into account have his position regularized accord
possible differences between this ing to the principle of the corres
grade and that which should corres pondence between duties and grades pond to the post in the light of the drawn up in Annex I. duties which it involves.
In Joined Cases 20 and 21/63
Jean Maudet , an official of the European Economic Community, repre
sented by Louis Rousseau, Advocate, of the Conseil d'Etat and Cour de
Cassation, Paris, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, Advocate, of the Court of Appeal, Luxembourg, 27 avenue
Guillaume,
applicant,
1 — Language of the Case: French.
JUDGMENT OF 19.3.64 — JOINED CASES 20 AND 21/63
V
Commission of the European Economic Community , represented by its Legal Adviser, Louis de la Fontaine, acting Agent, for as with an address
service in Luxembourg at the Office of Henry Manzanares, Secretary of the Legal Department of the European Executives, 2 place de Metz,
defendant,
Application for annulment of:
1. The decision of the Commission of 14 December 1962 in that it established Mr Maudet in Grade A4 instead of Grade A3 (Case 20/63);
2. The Decision of the President of the Commission of 8 March 1963 in that it dismissed the complaint made by Mr Maudet and refused to place him in Grade A3 (Case 21/63);
THE COURT
composed of: A. M. Donner, President, A. Trabucchi (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, L. Delvaux, R. Rossi and R. Lecourt, Judges,
Advocate-General: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Issues of fact and of law
I — Facts was established in Grade A4, Step 6. This decision is contested by Application The facts may be summarized as fol ws: 20/63 made on 2 April 1963. A complaint by the applicant on 11
By letter of 24 November 1958 the January 1963 that he should be estab
applicant was appointed as head of the lished in Grade A3 rather than Grade Premises and Equipment Division in A4 was rejected by the President of the Commission Eco Commission the of the European by letter of 8 March 1963. Community. This decision is Applica nomic contested by
By a decision of the Commission of tion 21/63 made on 2 April 1963. 14 December 1962 his post became governed by the new Staff Regulations II —
Conclusions of the parties
of officials of the Communities pursuant to Article 102 of the Regulations and he In Case 20/63 the applicant claims that
MAUDET v COMMISSION
the Court should: plaint would be devoid of substance and the applicant would have no legal 'annul the contested decision to the interest in bringing it. extent only that it established him in The applicant alleges that the decision Grade A4 instead of Grade A3 to. which of the Commission of 14 December 1962 he was entitled, with all the conse concerning his establishment and the quences that such annulment entails in decision of the President of the Commis law.' sion of 8 March 1963 rejecting his com
The defendant contends that the Court plaint are two separate and distinct should: decisions and that he is adversely af
'declare the application to be unfounded fected by each. and make the appropriate order as to The applicant is more adversely affected by the decision contested in Application costs.'
In Case 21/63 the applicant claims that 21/63 than by that contested in Applica the Court should: tion 20/63, since the former not only 'annul the express decision of the Presi the decision of the Commis confirms
dent of the Commission of the EEC of sion but also rejects all the submissions
8 March 1963 in that it rejected the made by the applicant in his complaint applicant's request and refused to estab to show the unlawful nature of the first lish him in Grade A3, with all the conse decision and to obtain its annulment.
quences that such annulment entails in Moreover, this application will be justi law.' fied and will not lack legal interest as
The defendant contends that the Court long as the Court has not ruled on the should: admissibility of Application 20/63. 'declare that application to be inadmis In its rejoinder the defendant continues to sible or unfounded and make the ap maintain that the applicant had no
propriate order as to costs.' legal interest in bringing this applica
tion, but leaves this question to the Ill — Submissions and argu wisdom of the Court. ments of the parties
B — On the substance of the case The submissions and arguments of the
parties may be summarized as follows: The applicant maintains that, as is shown by the letter of employment and A —
On admissibility all official documents concerning him drawn up before or since the entry into In Case 20/63 the defendant raises no force of the Staff Regulations, he was objection as to the admissibility of the always known as head of divsion; his application. director, Mr Merpillat, stated in his 1 he defendant maintains, however, that general assessment that Mr Maudet was '
in Case 21/63 the application is in responsible for an extremely difficult admissible in that, as the administrative division and his duties, both admini
status of the applicant was unchanged stratively and in human terms, could be
by the decision of the Commission of very disagreeable; finally the President 14 December 1962, no new legal situa of the Commission of the EEC expressly tion was created by the reply given by that he was capable of performing stated
the President of the Commission. theduties attaching to his post. Since As that decision forms the basis of an Annex I to the Staff Regulations states application the admissibility of which that the duties of head of division corres
cannot be contested, a second applica pond to Grade A3,, the Commission of
tion against the rejection of the com the EEC was bound by Article 102 of
JUDGMENT OF 19.3.64—JOINED CASES 20 AND 21/63
the Staff Regulations, which expressly the alternative in Article 102 which
refers standardizing practice in to re refers to the grade and step which had impliedly' gard to career brackets and to the criteria been 'expressly or accorded
to be used in grading, to apply Annex I to the servant concerned.
which had been adopted by mutual The applicant maintains that he is not
agreement by the Councils of the Com requesting the table of basic posts and
munities and, therefore, to establish corresponding career brackets in Annex Mr Maudet, who holds a post as head of I to be applied retroactively to the division, in Grade A3. situation existing before the entry into The defendant contends that the table of force of the Staff Regulations. He is basic posts and corresponding career merely asking that it be applied to the brackets drawn up in Annex I to the existing on 1 January 1962 at situation
Staff Regulations did not apply to which date he still held a post as head situations existing before the entry into of division.
force of the Regulations. The classifica The transitional provision in Article 102 tion of any servant employed as such to which the defendant refers can only
when those Regulations came into force be applied in the context of the general was governed by the transitional pro provisions of the Staff Regulations, vision in Article 102 which provides that that is, of those provisions governing servants who are occupying permanent corresponding categories and posts. The may be established in the grade step of the scale of remunera posts grade and
and at the step expressly or impliedly tion at which establishment is made
accorded them before the Staff Regula must, therefore, be determined 'in terms tions were applied to them. of the categories provided for by the
By adopting Annex I to the Staff Regula Staff Regulations, their definitions and
tions the Councils did not take any their correspondence to specific posts'.
decision concerning standardizing prac Any decision standardizing practice in tice in regard to career brackets and the regard to career brackets which may criteria to be used in grading as referred later be taken by the institutions must, to in Article 102. According to this as regards basic posts, be strictly in provision, any measures of standardiza accordance with the table in Annex I. tion could only be introduced once each This confirms that classification at the
institution had defined, on the basis of time of establishment must take into the table in Annex I, the powers and account the correspondence between duties attaching to each post. This being basic posts and career brackets laid so, servants employed as such on the down in this Annex.
entry into force of the Staff Regulations Moreover, the Commission of the EEC could only be classified in the grade cannot use its own failure to define the accorded before their establishment. duties and powers attaching to each post In his reply the applicant maintains that as a defence against one of its servants, the restrictive interpretation given by since under Article 5 (4) of the Staff the defendant is inconsistent with the Regulations it is obliged to draw up this terms of Article 102. It is clear from this definition. provision that where the grade ex Finally, as the nature of the applicant s pressly accorded is inconsistent with duties is not in doubt, the contested that attaching to the post actually held decision infringes not only the Staff — which may be shown by a comparison Regulations but also the rights acquired with the grades conferred on the holders by him. only the latter The defendant that the per of similar posts — then contends
grade should be taken into account on formance of certain duties can in no way establishment. This is the meaning of imply the holding of any grade other
MAUDET v COMMISSION
than that expressly fixed by contract and why the Staff Regulations made a
confirmed by subsequent uncontested reservation with regard to any decisions decisions. The fact that during the standardizing practice in regard to
period before the introduction of the career brackets. This reservation was
Staff Regulations, Mr Maudet was deliberately inserted to cover the possi
classified in Grade A4 while performing bility that in certain cases classification the duties of head of division, whilst in a grade corresponding to that ac
other officials performing comparable corded earlier might conflict with the duties were classified in Grade A3, is table in Annex I. The transitional
explained by the provisional nature of provision of Article 102 is thus an
the organization of departments and exception to the rules governing the
system of grades made in the light of recruitment of officials after the entry immediate needs and in terms of the into force of the Staff Regulations. available positions according to the
budget. IV — Procedure On the entry into force of the Staff
Regulations, although the applicant's The procedure followed the normal
abilities and merit were unquestionable course.
and had always been recognized by the Since the subjects of Applications 20/63 Commission, he could not be classified and 21/63 are interrelated, the First in Grade A3 since there was no position Chamber of the Court, upon hearing available in that grade which could be the opinion of the Advocate-General allocated to the post of head of the divi and considering that the parties had no sion under his control. The sixth general objections, joined the cases by an Order report on the work of the Commission of 11 June 1963 for the purposes of
shows that its request for additional A3 procedure and judgment.
positions to be provided by means of a Upon hearing the preliminary report of
supplementary budget for 1962 in order the Judge-Rapporteur and the opinion
to provide for the re-organization of its of the Advocate-General, the First departments made necessary by the Chamber decided at the hearing on
introduction of the Staff Regulations 17 October 1963 not to make any was refused by the Council. preparatory inquiry. Application of the table of basic posts The oral procedure took place before and corresponding career brackets in the First Chamber on 6 November 1963. Annex I immediately after the entry into By order of 28 November 1963 the First force of the Staff Regulations merely Chamber of the Court, acting under
signifies that all posts vacant at that Article 95 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, time must be classified according to this referred both cases to the Court. table. If, as the applicant contends, the The oral procedure took place before classification referred to in Article 102 the Court on 14 January 1964. be the The Advocate-General his must always made according to presented
table in Annex I, it is difficult to explain opinion on 21 January 1964.
Grounds of judgment
On admissibility
The two applications have been made in due form and within the prescribed time-limits.
JUDGMENT OF 19.3.64 — JOINED CASES 20 AND 21/63
The defendant has raised no objection as to the admissibility of Application 20/63 and no grounds exist for the Court to raise the matter of its own
motion.
On the other hand, the defendant has questioned the admissibility of Appli cation 21/63 on the ground that the contested decision created no new legal situation for the applicant.
If, independently of the decision establishing the applicant, the Commission were to have classified him by means of a separate decision in a grade other than that obtained by him under the establishment procedure, then the
refusal of the Commission to uphold his request for reclassification, which is contested in Application 21/63, would certainly be capable of affecting him adversely.
This question is a matter relating to the consideration of the substance of the case.
In these circumstances Application 21/63 must also be declared admissible.
On the substance of the case
Having regard both to the office of head of division for which he was re
by the Commission and the duties he is performing at present, the cruited
applicant maintains that he is entitled to classification in Grade A3 under the
establishment procedure referred to in Article 102 and pursuant to Annex I to the Staff Regulations of officials of the EEC.
The defendant contends that Article 102 prevents a contractual servant
who was expressly accorded a particular grade before the entry into force of the Staff Regulations —
as is the case of the applicant who is classified in Grade A4 — from obtaining a different grade on establishment.
Moreover, Annex I can only be applied in the context of the possible
measures of standardization referred to in Article 102, after the definition
of the duties and powers attaching to each post had been adopted by each institution.
Article 102, the first four paragraphs of which have been wholly incorporated into Annex X to the new Staff Regulations of officials of the ECSC, was intended to provide uniform criteria to govern not only servants recruited 'Brussels'
on the basis of the so-called contract but also, in certain cases,
MAUDET v COMMISSION
established and non-established servants recruited under the former Staff
Regulations of the ECSC.
One of the common criteria ensures that except in the particular case re
ferred to in paragraph (2) of that Article, all servants of the European
Communities on being granted establishment maintain the positions which
they held before the entry into force of the Staff Regulations; this is effected by means of a quasi-automatic reclassification within the table provided in Article 66 of the Staff Regulations of the grade and step expressly or implied
ly accorded earlier.
Before the entry into force of these Staff Regulations, servants recruited
'Brussels' under the so-called scheme had no Staff Regulations to govern their position and could only obtain a particular grade and step by analogy with the system in force in the ECSC.
Therefore, it should be remembered that the position of these servants is
covered by the provision in Article 102 which refers to the grade and step 'impliedly'
accorded, that is, those impliedly accorded by analogy with the
system in force in the ECSC.
In fact, in questions of establishment, the above provision only refers to the
grade and step accorded earlier.
When acting in the context of the establishment procedure referred to in Article 102, the administration need not, during this first phase of the estab
lishment of servants under the Staff Regulations, take into account possible differences between the grade thus accorded to each servant and that which, under Annex I to the Staff Regulations and the definition referred to in the last subparagraph of Article 5, should correspond to the post in the light of the duties which it involves.
The decision to establish the applicant cannot therefore, be challenged on
the ground that it established him at the same grade and step which he had
impliedly been accorded before the entry into force of the Staff Regulations.
Therefore, Application 20/63 which seeks the annulment of the decision
concerning establishment on this ground should be dismissed.
However, any servant who, after establishment under the Staff Regulations, was maintained in an already existing post which, in the light of the duties which it involved, should correspond under the new Staff Regulations to a higher grade than that obtained in accordance with the procedure referred
JUDGMENT OF 19.3.64 — JOINED CASES 20 AND 21/63
to in Article 102, is entitled to have his position regularized according to the principle of the correspondence between duties And grades drawn up in Annex I.
In the complaint made on 11 January 1963 against his establishment in Grade A4 the applicant requested not only annulment of the decision
concerning establishment but, independently of this, his reclassification in Grade A3 as from 1 January 1962.
Moreover, the fact that the defendant was also aware of the distinction thus made between establishment and classification in a grade corresponding to the duties involved is shown by the letter, contested in Application 21/63, by which the Commission rejected the applicant's complaint.
It is clear that in this case the applicant was recruited in 1958 to perform the duties of head of the Premises, Equipment and Conferences Division at the Commission of the EEC.
On recruitment he had been given a position corresponding to Grade A4 by reference to the system laid down in the Staff Regulations of officials of the ECSC.
According to the table of grades and corresponding duties applying to
servants of the High Authority before the entry into force of the new Staff
Regulations, this grade was the starting point of the career bracket of princi
pal administrator which included Grades A4 and A3.
The definition given in this table of the duties of a principal administrator ('responsible for one of the principal sections of a division') correspond to
the duties performed by the applicant.
In the new Staff Regulations of officials of the three Communities these duties correspond to the career bracket of head of division, which now occurs only in Grade A3.
Moreover, the Premises, Equipment and Conferences Department in which 'Division' the applicant has always been employed was referred to as a in the
actual document, dated 14 December 1962, granting him establishment.
The applicant was responsible for the direction of this department both
before and after his establishment under the Staff Regulations.
The fact that the Commission did not draw up the definition of posts laid
MAUDET v COMMISSION
down in Article 5 of the Staff Regulations within the required time could not
prevent the applicant's being accorded Grade A3, since Annex I in which the Council gave directions for the formulation of this definition provided that, from the entry into force of the Staff Regulations, heads of division should be
classified in this grade.
Moreover, the definition of posts drawn up by the Commission on 29 July confirms that the duties performed by the applicant correspond to the post of
head of division within the meaning of Annex I.
Therefore, from the date of their entry into force, the Staff Regulations under which the applicant was established gave him the right to be classified in Grade A3 which corresponds to his post.
Costs
Although Application 20/63 must be dismissed the applicant has been
successful in his claims.
In pursuance of Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure the defendant must be
ordered to pay the costs.
On those grounds,
Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General;
Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court ofJustice annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community; Having regard to Articles 5, 91 and 102 of the Staff Regulations of officials of
the European Economic Community and Annex I to those Regulations;
Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities;
THE COURT
hereby:
1. Dismisses Application 20/63;
2. Annuls the decision contested in Application 21/63;
OPINION OF MR LAGRANGE — JOINED CASES 20 AND 21/63
3. Orders the defendant to pay the costs.
Donner Trabucchi Delvaux Rossi Lecourt
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 19 March 1964.
H.J. Eversen A. M. Donner Assistant Registrar President For the Registrar
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL LAGRANGE 1 DELIVERED ON 21 JANUARY 1964
Mr President, established the applicant in Grade A4, Members of the Court, Step 6, of the new table, and declared that he was 'assigned to a post in the
Mr Maudet, a special-category admini Directorate-General of Administration, French Treasury, Con strative officer at the in the Premises, Equipment and
entered the service of the European ferences Division of the Internal Affairs Economic Community under the so- Directorate'. The decision also stated 'Brussels' called system of contracts that 'this appointment shall take effect
(with which you are acquainted) follow from 1 January 1962'.
ing a letter of appointment of 24 Novem This decision is contested by Applica ber 1958. This document, signed by the tion 20/63 in that it established the Director-General of Administration, applicant in Grade A4 and not Grade indicated that during its meeting of A3 to which he claims he was entitled. 19 November 1958 the Commission A second Application, 21/63, contests had appointed the applicant 'to per
the decision of the President of the form the duties of head of the Premises Commission rejecting the complaint
and Equipment Division at the Direc made by the applicant against the torate-General of Administration'. decision establishing him in Grade A4. By letter of 25 February 1959 the T he defendant contends that, as the applicant was informed that the Com subject-matter of both actions is the mission had 'accorded him Grade A4, inadmis same, the second application is Step 2 (at a basic salary of 26750 BF)'. sible. A decision of 4 May 1960 accorded him I shall deal with the question of admissi
the fifth step of the same grade with bility after considering the first applica
effect from 1 March 1960 and on tion. In fact, contrary to the views 20 December 1960 he was accorded an apparently held by the parties, it is not additional step, still at Grade A4, with certain a priori that the absolutely effect from 1 December 1960. This was subject of both applications is the same; the situation on 1 January 1962 on the in my opinion this depends in part on
entry into force of the Staff Regulations. the result of the first application, which A decision of 14 December 1962 apply
I shall now consider.
ing Article 102 of the Staff Regulations
1 — Translated from the French.