C-70/63

JUDGMENT OF 7.7.1964 — CASE 70/63

2. The carrying forward of seniority is is impossible for these officials to be to be applied to officials who are appointed by implication to another integrated within the meaning of grade.

Article 94 of the Staff Regulations of the ECSC. Consequently, the posi­

5. The revaluation of the post and the tion of these officials must be calcul­

determination of the step are guided ated employing the value of the steps by entirely different criteria, and the of the grade within which they have been integrated. essential role of the step is to take

account of the official's seniority; it thus constitutes a factor relating to 3. The compensatory allowance pro­

In Case 70/63,

Umberto COLLOTTI , the Head of the Language Department of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, residing at Luxembourg, assisted by Fernand Probst, Advocate of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of his counsel, 16 avenue de la

Liberté applicant,

v

Court of Justice of the European Communities , represented by its

Registrar, Albert Van Houtte, acting as Agent, assisted by Tony Biever, avocat-avoue of the Court supérieure de justice of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Court, 12 rue de la Côte-d'Eich,

alternatively: for the annulment of the individual decision of the Court dated 17 July 1956, to the extent that the said decision is based on Article 2 (b) of the General Staff Regulations of the European Coal and Steel Community,

which must from the outset be declared inapplicable on the ground of

infringement of Article 24 of the former Staff Regulations of the European

Coal and Steel Community, and, consequently, the restructuring ab initio of the applicant's career bracket, involving the finding that on 31 December 1961 the applicant had Grade A 3, Step 6, with 15 seniority in the months'

Language Service, under the ECSC scale, and the reclassification, with

effect from 1 January 1962 in Grade L/A3 Step 7, of the scale of the revised Staff Regulations, with 15 months' seniority, with the appropriate pecuniary adjustments, including the payment of salary backdated to 1 January 1962;

Issues of fact and of law

I — Conclusions of the parties annul the decision of 14 March 1963 in so far as it classified the applicant

A. The applicant claims: in Grade L/A3, Step 5, with seniority

(a) In his application that the Court from 1 July 1960; should: In so reversing the decision, classify Declare that it has jurisdiction to the applicant in Grade L/A 3, Step 7, entertain the present dispute; with effect from 1 January 1962, with Rule that this application is admis­ the appropriate pecuniary adjust­

sible and well-founded and therefore ments and the payment of salary

JUDGMENT OF 7.7.1964 — CASE 70/63

and rule that on 31 December 1961 he back-dated to 1 January was placed in Grade A 3, Step 6, with B. The defendant contends that the Court 15 months' seniority, in the Language should:

Service under the ECSC scale, and dismiss the application made by that from that position he should be Umberto Collotti as being without

reclassified with effect from 1 January legal foundation, with regard to both 1962 in Grade L/A 3, Step 7; in the the principal and alternative claims; scale of the revised Staff Regulations, dismiss the request for the production 15 seniority in the step, documents relating to the salary months'

with of

with all the appropriate pecuniary of officials in Category A and L/A on

consequences, including the payment 30 June 1956, as being irrelevant to of salary back-dated to 1 January the present action; 1962; order the applicant to bear his own

effect

(b) In his reply: of the Court of 17 November 1955. By 'The applicant maintains his principal decision of the Court of 17 July 1956 he conclusions in their entirety and puts became subject to the Staff Regulations forward the following alternative con­ and was classified in Grade L/A, Step 5. clusions : that the Court should: annul In the alternative conclusions of his the individual decision of the Court application, the applicant contests this

of 17 July 1956 in so far as it based on decision of 17 July 1956, claiming that it Article 2 (b) of the General Staff is based on Article 2 (b) of the General Regulations of the ECSC, adopted by Staff Regulations of the ECSC, enacted the Committee of Presidents, which by the Committee of Presidents on 5 and should be declared inapplicable from 29 March 1956; Article 2 (b) of the the outset on the ground of infringe­ General Staff Regulations contains the

ment of Article 24 of the Staff Regula­ salary scale of the officials in the

tions of the ECSC; Language Department and the appli­

consequently, rule that the applicant's cant alleges that this scale infringes the

special services, it does not allow them The submissions and arguments of the to create new grades within those ser­

parties may be summarized as follows: vices, such as the four grades in the Language Department (L/A, L/B, L/C A — On admissibility and L/D), which, taken in conjunction

with the 13 grades of the ordinary scale, 1. With regard to the principal claim result in a total of 17 grades: according The defendant does not dispute the ad­

to the applicant, since Article 24 of the said Staff Regulations limits the number missibility of the principal claim.

of grades to 13, the creation of these four 2. With regard to the alternative claim additional grades is illegal. On 1 The defendant does not contend expressly January 1960, the applicant

last that the alternative claim is inadmissible. reached the step (L/A, second

step higher by two years and six months of and which have moreover defence),

than that recognized by the said deci­ been replaced since 1 January 1962 by sion. other Regulations under which the

Under the terms of the alternative con­ applicant obtains the benefit of a higher

clusions his application, requesting of grade than that which he had under the the annulment of the Court's decision of former Staff Regulations. 17 July 1956, the applicant claims that With regard to the argument that the

the ensuing restructuring of his career application is out of time, the applicant

bracket should result in his classification replies that the case-law of the Court at 1 January 1962 in Grade L/A 3, Step with regard to 'the objection of il­

true that previously these principles objection should be upheld in his parti­

have only been applied with regard to cular case outside any rule of the Staff general decisions (regulations) of the Regulations, without thereby implying High Authority on the application of an amendment to the Staff Regulations

undertakings, but there are all the applicable to all servants of all the

more groundsfor applying these prin­ Language Departments of the four ciples when the objection is raised by a institutions of the ECSC since 1956? Or does he want annulment 'erga omnes'

servant of the Community against an

individual decision of his institution with retroactive effect? If an annulment based Com­ on a regulation of the of this nature were pronounced, the sole

the EEC and EAEC Treaties, on 'any grades and adding an additional step party'. to the last step — a reduction by one step of The applicant replies with regard to the the maximum salary for all the servants argument offormal acceptance that, while of the Language Department, limiting it is incontestable that the document of them to the maximum of the normal

28 June 1956 materially constitutes an scale of Grades A 4, A 5, A 6 and A 7,

acceptance, it was however only the ex­ which applicant cannot clearly pressed subject to the reservations con­ wish.

tained in a letter collectively addressed The applicant replies that he used the illegality' on the same day by the members of the words 'objection of in order

Language Department to the Court to to refer to the judgment in Case 9/56 protest against their classification in the (Meroni, 18 June 1956, Rec. 1958, p. 11) grades of a special service. and in particular to paragraphs 1, 2 and

According to the applicant, the accept­ 3 of the Summary and that this makes ance recognized by the document of his claim sufficiently clear to relieve the 28 June 1956 was made subject to administration of the necessity of con­

ternative conclusions and lack of legal 24 of the Staff Regulations of the

interest to act ECSC'.

The defendant alleges that in his applica­ B — On the merits tion the applicant uses the expression 'objection' 1. With regard to the principal claim without defining what he means by this. Is he proposing that an T he applicant claims that the decision

COLLOTTI v COURT

taken by the Court on 14 March 1963, it must be noted above all that it is to the that it is contested, in­ Langu­ extent established that the grades of the

fringes the revised Staff Regulations of age Department of the ECSC do not

provisions, appearsmerely to have fol­ ing that the highest step provided for lowed what was done in a similar case by the head of the Language Department another institution (the High Authority corresponded to the second step of

in respect of the Head of its Language Grade 2. It may however be wondered Department). which steps in the former Grade L/A

In order to apply the revised Staff correspond to Grade 4 and which to

Regulations, thedecision taken classi­ Grade 3. A fairly clear answer to this is fied the applicant in Grade L/A 3, Step afforded by the initial classification of 5, with 18 seniority in that step, in 1956; having received months'

the applicant

with effect from 1 January 1962. This during the period before the entry into classification was wrong with regard to force of the Staff Regulations a salary the step. On 31 December 1961 the rated at 62.5% of the salary of a

be confirmed in the grade and at the tional steps of the former Grade L/A

step of the scale of remuneration laid correspond to Grade 3 of the ordinary down by these Staff Regulations cor­ scale. In any case one thing is certain:

to the the second step (that is Step ex­ grade and additional responding step pressly or by implication accorded him 7) of the former Grade L/A corresponds before these Regulations were applied to without any doubt to Grade 3 of the

him'. ECSC ordinary scale. Having thus Since the new Staff Regulations do not established the grade which the appli­

provide special grades for the Language cant held by implication in the ECSC Department, it is impossible to re­ system, it remains to establish the step.

classify directly from the former special The second additional L/A at step scale of the Language Department to which the applicant was placed on

of the Staff Regulations, it is revised step of Grade L/A (8220 units of

thus necessary to start from Grade 3, account). This is in application of

Step 5, of the ECSC scale and to classify paragraph (1) of the sole Article of

the applicant, with effect from 1 Janu­ Annex X to the new Staff Regula­

ary 1962, in Grade L/A 3, Step 5, then, tions.

in accordance with paragraph (4) (b) of 2. The value of a step in the former Annex X to him at the im­ place step grade (1650 francs per month) was mediately above, that is, Step 6, and granted through the application of

applicant acquired two The applicant states that the decision seniority at the last step in his grade. taken does not contain a statement of 4. A compensatory allowance of 635 reasons, whilst admitting at the same francs, representing the difference time that, given its nature, it could not between the salary in Grade L/A, have a statement of reasons. second additional step, and the salary The applicant states that the foregoing of Grade L/A 4, Step 8, would have constitutes sufficient proof that at 31 been granted to the applicant if he December 1961 he was placed in a had not claimed Grade L/A 3. This career bracket corresponding to Grade 3 is in application of Article 95 of the of the ECSC ordinary scale. new Staff Regulations. Account has With the aim of supporting his claim been taken of this amount of 635 that the point of departure for the francs in ascertaining the step in calculations to effect the reclassification Grade L/A 3. in the scale of the new Staff Regulations is Grade A 3, the applicant claims in his 5. In order to pass from Grade L/A 4 to

conclusions that the Court should: Grade L/A 3, the applicant has been de­ granted the value of a new of order the production by the step fendant documents 1650 francs per month, in applica­ of all indicating the percentage salaries of all officials tion of Article 46 of the new Staff

in A L/A 30 June Regulations. Category and at

1956 together with their classification 6. The applicant has benefited from at the entry into force of the Staff seniority arising from the notional ECSC'. Regulations of the step dealt with in Article 46. The The defendant replies by stating in detail calculation of the notional step re­

the basis of the value of the step in the by applying paragraph (4) (b) of the new grade, that is, 2150 francs per month, sole Article of Annex X to the new

and the calculation of Staff Regulations of the ECSC (Ar­

ticle 102 (4) (b) of the new Staff 24 Regulations of the EEC and EAEC); 1585 17.7, giving 18 months'

X =

2150 3. To assimilate transfer to a higher seniority. grade to promotion, thus affording the

The classification of the on person concerned the benefit of the applicant, the basis of the foregoing, be provisions of Article 46 in order to may summarized as fol ws: ascertain his step in the new grade. The applicant contests the legality of using Under paragraph (1) of the sole Article 46 of the revised Staff Regula­

3, Step 5, leaving a balance of 1585 personal factor with regard to the

francs, which constitutes the basis for servant, but is simply an alteration of

calculating the seniority at the step (18 grade by the authority under the new months), as a result of which at 1 July system and, if necessary, as a conse­

1962 the applicant was entitled to Step 6 of a reorganization of depart­ quence

of Grade L/A 3. ments. The fact that other administra­

The defendant observes that the rules tions have also adopted the solution of

decided: application of Article 46 to his case, was 1. To carry out integration in the grade the most favourable interpretation that

corresponding to that attributed to could be given to the relevant provi­

the official under the former provi­ sions, thereby affording the person con­

sions (linear transpoit n); cerned the opportunity of benefiting by

JUDGMENT OF 7.7.1964 — CASE 70/63

a further step. In accordance, moreover, while reserving to itself the right to settle with the terms of Article 46, the ad­ the points of divergence.

according to the the administra­ quently, cant are thus not only those which

tion's argument, he was entitled to this High Authority applied to the Head of step. The defendant then undertakes an its Language Department, but also

examination, by point, of point the those applied by the Assembly, the

arguments put forward by the applicant Council of Ministers and the Court of

in his application. Tustice. consultation between the Preliminary

(a) The principle of the autonomy of the institutions in no way prevents any of institutions them taking their own decisions and

institutions of the Communities. Joint Interests Committee is merely a The three sets of Staff Regulations do consultative body of the Committee of not merely relate to the institutions, but Presidents. In order to establish the

indeed to the Community to which they classification of the Head of the Lan­

belong. In addition, the problems posed guage Department, the administration

by the existence of common institutions of the Court had thus referred to bodies which must apply the three sets of without legal existence or without com­

Staff Regulations at the same time, the petence. In so doing, it has certainly possibility of transferring servants from ignored, inter alia, the principle of the one institution to another and the autonomy of the institutions, which the supervision exercised by the Auditor Court defined in general terms in its of the ECSC and the Audit Board of the judgment of 12 July 1957 (Joined

EEC and EAEC require a uniform Cases 7/56 and 3 to 7/57, Rec. 1957, pp. application of the provisions of the 86 and 87, Summary, paragraphs 6 and Staff Regulations. 7) and applied to the administration of This requirement, arising in addition the Court in its judgment of 1 June 1961 from the elementary rules of good (Case 15/60, Rec. 1961, Summary, administration, had already been ful­ paragraph 7). It should be stressed that filled under the Staff Regulations of the in the latter judgment the Court ruled

otherinstitution has adopted a different ECSC system were contractual servants.

solution. With regard to servants holding a interim' position 'ad under the ECSC (b) Calculation by the applicant of the system, it is not clear what relationship grade and step can exist between their position and the 'implied' grades and steps as, according The defendant states that the applicant's to Article 26 of the former Staff Regula­

claim that Grade 3 must be the point of tions of the ECSC, it is just an interim departure for the reclassification ac­ period when a servant holding a certain cording to the scale of the revised Staff grade has conferred upon him the

Regulations is at odds with both para­ duties higher grade; in order to of a

graph (1) of the sole Article of Annex X establish whether the duties temporarily to the revised Staff Regulations and the performed are of a higher level, it is work of the Committee of Presidents in clearly necessary to know the express

1956. grade to which the servant belongs and the express grade to which the duties (aa) The terms of paragraph (1) of carried out ad interim correspond. the sole Article of Annex X However, the defendant indirectly gives 'implied' a definition of the grade and

former Staff Regulations of the ECSC, lowing : when the grade and step of a without these being stated. This was the servant do not appear expressly in the case for all staff of the two new Com­ ECSC ordinary scale, they are to be munities and the common institutions established by implication by means of the

employed on the basis of a contract. The salary which the servant receives. It is implication' definition be in­ expression 'by also covers true that this might

the position of officials under the Staff sufficient to settle certain cases, since

Regulations of the ECSC who have a the same step may be found in various post 'ad interim'. grades of the ECSC scale. In such cases The applicant replies that the interpre­ reference would have to be made to

tation of the defendant with regard to other criteria but with regard to the

staff employed on the basis of a contract applicant's case no doubt is pos ible: in is entirely wrong. It is sufficient, in order fact, at 31 December 1961 (and for to show this, to note that under Article 24 months before that date) he received 246 (3) of the EEC Treaty and Article a basic salary of 8220 units of account

should be taken only of Step 5 of Grade ment of defence. On the other hand, in

3. It is therefore necessary to take this the case of the EEC and EAEC, Article

step as the basis and to add two steps to 102, which deals with transitional pro­

it, as agreed by the administration, to visions, forms an integral part of the

arrive thus, at 1 January 1962, at Staff Regulations properly so called and Com­ Grade 3, Step 7, of the new scale. This applies to all the staff of those

solution is arrived at even if it is desired munities.

not fixed by express reference to a step corresponding to the position of grade and step of a scale under a set of Head of the Language Department. Staff Regulations could fall within the concept of an implied grade. In fact, it (bb) The work of the Committee of must be remarked that Annex X, with Presidents in 1956 on the Staff its 'sole Article', contains differing pro­ Regulations of the ECSC visions referring first to established

officials and secondly to contractual The defendant produces the minutes of

Presi­ servants. the meeting of the Committee of Thus for example, dents on 5 March 1956 (Schedule 12 to —

it is stated in the first subparagraph the statement of defence) and the

of paragraph (1) that 'a servant … draft of the General Staff Regulations

may … be established', (Schedule 13). It deduces from these

step higher than is is certainly Grade 4 increased by one pro­ partment a

vided for in the draft General Staff step.

Regulations, the point of departure All grades, in proportion they prog-

of the career bracket being 3816 units ress through the steps, overlap the of account E.P.U., and the maximum salaries of one or two higher grades. being 8200 Thus it President Mayer account.'

units of was that was

Tne abovementioned arait of the rightly able to show that the maximum General Staff Regulations indisputably of L/A corresponded to Grade 2, Step 2.

to isolate the Court, occupying different posts

a certain group of officials'. from that of the applicant, is irrelevant It was that remark, moreover, which to the present dispute. the President the High Au­ first that caused of The applicant replies it is

thority, Rene Mayer, 'to propose to doubtful whether the defendant can

increase the general advantages given after seven years produce in evidence

to this unit but to refuse transfer to its against him two documents (Schedules (See 12 13 to the defence) competition'

officials without a and statement of

much greater severity will be neces­ 4 at the same time as T/A. But, on

sary in the field of harmonizing the comparing Schedule 13 with Schedule Language Departments the salaries of 12, it is found that Grade T/A, which lower.' which will therefore be was completely identical with Grade

JUDGMENT OF 7.7.1964 — CASE 70/63

4, was not accepted by the Committee of of the EEC and the EAEC allows the Division' Presidents and, consequently, in order 'Head of the Translation to be to reach an agreement, Grade A 4 was classified in Grades L/A 3 and L/A 4,

substantially reviewed, the initial step and in fact the Heads of the Translation was abolished, over and above the Division in the Commission of the EEC maximum step of 7620 units of account and EAEC are effectively classified in there was added a step with 8220 units Grade L/A 4. Why were they treated L/A' of account named 'Grade finally differently? The applicant states that

equivalence with all other the reason for this is that of the four abolishing grades in the ordinary scale. It follows Heads of the Language Departments in from this that Grade L/A is not and the former institutions of the ECSC never has been identical with Grade 4. three (at the Council, the Court and the The applicant then examines what High Authority), were already in a constituted Grade L/A under the former position in their career brackets cor­ Staff Regulations of the ECSC: it was responding to Grade A 3 and it was

The further step for the two years'

applicant then alleges that the seniority former Members of the Court and the acquired at the last step of Grade L/A

Registrar, the defendant's agent in the at 31 December 1961 when the ECSC present case, proffered the opinion that system was terminated.

the applicant's grade under the former T he defendant replies that it is not true

Staff Regulations of the ECSC cor­ that the applicant was unaware of

responded to Grade A 3, and even to Schedules 12 and 13 to the statement of Grade A 2. He adds that, if the Court defence. It is proved that he was aware deemed it useful to order measures of of the minutes of the meeting of the inquiry, he would not oppose this, but Committee of Presidents on 5 March he requests that the Court should in any 1956 (Schedule 12), first by the back­ event also order the examination of the ground of the application and, secondly de­ applicant and the agent of the by a letter addressed to the Court by the fendant. applicant on 3 March 1961 (Schedule 1 He also adduces an argument from to the rejoinder).

Presidents, 'a new grade'

mittee of was the instructions received by him, are introduced (the first grade of the Lan­ in this matter. clear

guage Department), it is also true, as the But all this is concerned with preparatory applicant himself has said, that this work. The fact is that the decision taken grade is effectively the same as Grade did not conform to the views of the A 4. Moreover, the applicant did not Court and that, consequently, it was establish this recently. He expressed it classify the staff in ac­ necessary to clearly in the above-men­ even more cordance with the decision which the tioned letter of 3 March 1961, stating: Court in the end approved. Therefore, 'At the time when the Staff Regulations when the Staff Regulations entered into were applied, I was classified in Grade force, it was necessary to modify certain L/A, a grade which was arbitrarily provisional classifications or equations created, and is only Grade 4 dis­ which description' of positions existing prior to that date, guised by a false (Schedule 1 to and certain officials found that they had the rejoinder p. 2, second paragraph). lost ground to others whose positions It is impossible to recognize more clearly were in higher grades. This emerges that the administration of the Court was from the data put forward by the justified in taking Grade 4 as the basis for applicant in his reply (p. 8, first para­

classifying the applicant in Grade 3 graph), while he calls 'the essential part under the new Staff Regulations. he had table'

of the celebrated which If an additional argument is required requested the administration to produce. that the course of action of the adminis­

rightly considers that he is entitled to from the Secretariat of the Councils of

thestep accorded to the Language Ministers (Schedule 8 to the statement

Department by paragraph (4) (b) of the of defence), but that this note also put sole Article of Annex X. It is necessary, forward the following solution: in the however, to explain why this step was case of example 2 (p. 3) the servant accorded to the officials of the Language would pass from the S­ tep 4 of the former

Department to the exclusion of any Grade L/B to Step 5 of the New Grade other service. L/A 4. At its meeting on 21 February This extra step must re -establish exact 1963 (Schedule 9 to the statement of

equality with the servants classified in defence) the Committee of the Heads of Administration latter corresponding grades of the normal the solu­ the rejected

scale. tion, probably for the reason set out in In fact paragraph (1) of the sole Article the note from the Secretariat of the

pot example, in order to find in the justified in relation to that of compar­

former Staff Regulations the salary of able servants in Category A', pointing step 5 of Grade L/B in the salary scale of to the skills required of servants in the

Grade 5, it is necessary to look for it at Language Department, the difficult and Step 6. thankless work which was entrusted to

Consequently, it was not intended, in them, and finally the fact that in

applying paragraph (4) of the sole practice their career bracket is limited Article, to give an additional advantage to Grade 4, since Grade 3 is the exclusive

to the officials of the Language Depart­ preserve of the Head of the Department. ment, but simply to place them in the In his opinion all these disadvantages same step in the normal scale of all the are quite sufficient to justify modest

servants, equally deserving, do not event of the Court's finding that the

enjoy. In principle, it appears that such for the Lan­ existence of special grades

an interpretation must be rejected in guage Department under the ECSC sys­

public law. tem requires it to be considered that at

In conclusion, by considering himself to 31 December 1961, the applicant was

be already classified at the outset in in a career bracket corresponding to

17459 francs. dence illegal and arbitrary. The pro­

The defendant again points out that the Staff Regulations vision setting up these grades must revision of the makes therefore be annulled. it possible for the applicant to attain a In the circumstances the career bracket further grade and allows him to retain of the applicant should be restructured for in years'

the ten seniority provided from the beginning as if the special the former Staff Regulations in calculat­ grades had never existed, always taking ing his pension. account of the Language Department. The applicant replies that there is dam­ Moreover, this restructuring of his age when a person is deprived of part of career bracket does not involve any that which is due to him by law or by difficulty. If reference is made to the contract. period prior to the Staff Regulations it If the administration is of the opinion is found that the applicant entered the that there is no damage, why has it not department in September 1954 with a invoked the plea of lack of interest and salary of 55%, that in 1 January 1956 he contended that the principal claim is was appointed Head of the Department inadmissible? The fact that the appli­

at a salary of 62.5% with effect from cant has derived advantages from his 1 January 1956; the only other official new classification is quite irrelevant of the Court with a salary of 62.5% was since it is clear that he was entitled to classified at the time of the entry into further advantages. force of the Staff Regulations of the ECSC in Grade 3, Step 3, and conse­

December 1961 (the end of the ECSC maximum in his career bracket.

system) at the same Step 6 with 15 On the other hand, the official with

months' seniority. In this notional career whom the applicant compares himself bracket he must be reclassified in Grade followed the same career bracket from 3, Step 6, of the scale of the revised the very beginning (1953). The appli­

Staff Regulations under paragraph (1) cant was appointed on 1 January 1956 of Annex X with 15 months' seniority in to a new career bracket. Consequently, the step and (4) then, under paragraph the conditions are not comparable.

(b) of the same Annex, in Step 5 of the Furthermore, if on restructuring his scale of the revised Staff Regulations, career bracket, the applicant were classi­

still with 15 months' seniority in the fied at 1 October 1954 (the date of his step. entry into service, and after that date, as The defendant replies that the official Head of the Department) in Grade 3, he with whom the applicant compares would only attain Step 6 by 1 October himself follows a different career at the 1964. He has been at Step 6 since 1 July Court from Head Lan­ decision that of of the 1962, following the of the

the ECSC entered into force, no rule on this matter was inserted into the

allowing for seniority was laid down. former Staff Regulations of the ECSC, The rule applied had in principle been the institutions did not adopt a uniform to reclassify the current salary obtained mode of procedure: the High Authority in the scale of salaries and career vaguely fixed the seniority of its servants brackets. The applicant had benefited in the relevant steps at 1 July 1956, from it at that time, as he was classified whilst the Court and the Council of

at Step 5 of L/A and had been since he Ministers fixed different dates spread

COLLOTTI v COURT

over the period from 1 January 1955 to Rec. 1955-1956, p. 24). 1 July 1956. The dratt referred to was that distrib­

The administration will no doubt reply uted in September 1954, that is, that it was not obliged to take into almost one and a half years before the

(a) In the period prior to the Man

Regulations steps existed under the IV — Procedure title of 'two-yearly increm nts';

(b) The right of promoted servants to The statements of the parties were

retain seniority at the step the presented in due form and within the

acquired in the lower grade appears prescribed time-limits and the pro­

as a generally accepted principle cedure followed the normal course.

lit eram', the Court clearly laid down (4) of the sole Article of Annex X to the (Summary, paragraph 2, Rec. new Staff Regulations of officials of the 1955-1956, p. 13) that, with regard ECSC. to contracts of employment con­ On 24 January 1964 the Committee of cluded during the period prior to Presidents replied that the provisions in the Staff Regulations, the institu­ question had not been discussed by tions must take into consideration them.

not only the wishes of the parties but On 28 January 1964 the defendant also 'the intentions of the Com­ produced the documents required.

munity with regard to its servants The parties presented oral arguments

which clearly shown are in the at the hearing on 19 February 1964. Regulations'

final draft of the Staff The Advocate-General delivered his (judgment quoted, paragraph 7, opinion at the hearing on 4 March 1964.

JUDGMENT OF 7.7.1964 — CASE 70/63

1. Criticism of the method adopted by the defendant

In its statement of defence, the defendant set forth the method employed to

ascertain the classification of the applicant, as reproduced in the contested decision.

The first operation in the reclassification consisted in the transfer from Grade L/A, second additional step, which the applicant held under the

former Staff Regulations of the ECSC, to Grade L/A 4, Step 7, of the salary scale of the new Staff Regulations of the ECSC. In this first operation, the defendant correctly applied Annex X to the Staff Regulations.

Grades L/A, L/B, L/C, and L/D of the former Language Department correspond exactly to the former Grades 4, 5, 6 and 7 increased by one step.

It follows from the provision applied, and in particular from the words

' … shall be classified in the grade for his post and at the step within that

COLLOTTI v COURT

grade directly above …', that the step above must be conferred within the grade at the point arrived at by the reclassification, that is to say, in this case, in Grade L/A 3, in which the value of the step amounts to 2150 francs.

For this reason, the second operation in the reclassification has not been

correctly carried out.

For this reason the third operation in the reclassification can also not be approved.

The defendant in the fourth place added to the preceding figure the sum of 635 francs, representing the difference between the applicant's former salary

and the salary of the new Grade L/A 4, Step 8, which would have been granted him if he had not been entitled to Grade L/A 3.

The compensatory allowance provided for by Article 95 of the Staff Regula­ tions may only be granted if there is a difference between the former re­

muneration and that resulting from the application of the new Staff Regula­

tions.

JUDGMENT OF 7.7.1964 — CASE 70/63

For this reason no compensatory allowance can be granted to the applicant

or taken into account in an intermediate operation in the reclassification.

The defendant has finally added the value of a new step in Grade L/A 4

(1650 francs) pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 46 of the new Staff Regulations and has thus finally arrived at a figure of 46835 francs, corres­

ponding to Grade L/A 3, Step 5, (45520 francs) with a balance of 1585 francs arising from the calculation of the notional step and producing a

among the provisions referring particularly to the 'adjustment to the Staff

Regulations', provides that seniority shall be carried forward at the value of the step in the new grade.

On this ground, indeed, the final operation in the reclassification was

invalidity carried out by the defendant.

On the above-mentioned grounds the contested decision has not correctly applied the provisions of the Staff Regulations and must be annulled in so far as it lays down the step to which the applicant is entitled.

2. Criticism of the method adopted by the applicant

officials of the Language Department, he must be classified on 1 January 1962 in Grade L/A 3, Step 7, with the right to the next step on 1 January 1964.

Under the former Staff Regulations the applicant had expressly attained

Grade L/A, second additional step.

This grade must therefore serve as the point of departure for the reclassifica­

tion in accordance with the scale of the new Staff Regulations, all the more

so since it is impossible for the applicant to be appointed by implication to

Moreover, as the applicant employed an implied grade which he did not have as the point of departure, his calculation cannot constitute a valid basis for rectifying his classification.

3. Method arising from the spirit of the Staff Regulations

It is for the Court, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, to re-establish the classification of the applicant in accordance with the Staff Regulations.

As has been explained above, the first operation consists in reclassifying the

applicant's former classification in accordance with the scales of the new

Staff Regulations as Grade L/A 4, Step 7.

'ratio legis'.

The Staff Regulations effect a revaluation of the post because of a more

favourable evaluation of the duties.

In this case the post occupied by the applicant, which was an A 4 post under the former Staff Regulations, was transformed into an A 3 post.

Since the Staff Regulations are silent the revaluation of the post must logi­

cally be interpreted to mean that the former evaluation of the post was too low by a complete grade.

Consequently, since the revaluation of the post and the determination of the step are guided by entirely different criteria, logic requires that the

advantages arising from both for the person concerned should be accumu­

lated separately, and certainly not set off against one another even partially.

Consequently, since the Staff Regulations are silent, it must be admitted that in cases of revaluation of a post, the person concerned must be classified

in his new grade at the same step as that which he occupied in the former grade.

The argument that if the Staff Regulations are silent, the revaluation of the

In'fact, this application of the rules pertaining to promotion would, for

example, allow an official classified as A 4, Step 4, whose post was revalued

as A 3, to pass to the first step of Grade A 3 thus placing him in the same position as a newly recruited A 3 official whose actual seniority would

nevertheless be at least six years less than that of the first official.

As the relevant provisions are silent on this point, the Court cannot presume

that Staff Regulations to in­ the authors of the wished countenance so

applicant is entitled to be classified as at 1 January 1962 in Step 7 of Grade L/A 3, with seniority in the step from 1 January 1962.

C — On the alternative claim

As has been set forth above, the classification to which the applicant is entitled is that which he claimed in his principal conclusions.

JUDGMENT OF 7.7.1964 — CASE 70/63

Consequently, an examination of the alternative conclusions is rendered

irrelevant.

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 of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Community;

Having regard to Articles 32, 44, 45, 46, 66, 92, 93, 94, and 95 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Coal and Steel Community and Annexes I and X thereto;

Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities;

COLLOTTI v COURT

3. Orders the defendant to pay the costs of the action.

Trabucchi Delvaux Strauß

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 7 July 1964.

H.J. Eversen A. Trabucchi Assistant Registrar President of the First Chamber For the Registrar

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL LAGRANGE <ap note>1</ap note> DELIVERED ON 4 MARCH 1964

first, because it is quite clear that you (4) (b) 'An official in the Language are well acquainted with the career of Service shall be classified in the grade

one of the most eminent officials of the for his post'. Annex I, establishing the Court, and, secondly, because this his­ basic posts and corresponding career

torical review is in any event irrelevant brackets, expressly classifies the 'Head Division'

to the examination of the alternative of Translation in Grade L/A 3. conclusions which I shall examine in On the other hand, there is a dispute due course. The principal conclusions over the step. The applicant claims that relate exclusively to the conditions on he is entitled, as at 1 January 1962, to which the applicant's classification was Step 7 of Grade L/A 3 with the right to in Staff effected the scale of the new the next step on 1 January 1964. Regulations, taking into account his The difficulty turns entirely on the

position under the Regulations at 31 interpretation of the combined provi­

December 1961, that is to say, Grade sions of paragraphs (1) and (4) (b) of

next step due on 1 July 1962). Staff Regulations 'in the grade and at the

1 — Translated from the French.