C-93/63

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (FIRST CHAMBER) 1964<appnote>1</appnote> 7 JULY

Simone Minot (nee Van Nuffel)

v Commission of the European Atomic Energy Community

Case 93/63

Summary

1. Officials — Appeal against decisions concerning the position of a servant prior to the publication of the Staff Regulations — Non-applicability of the Staff Regulations before the integration of that servant

SIMONE MINOT (NÉE VAN NUFFEL ), residing at Aalst (Belgium), assisted by Roland Van Lint, Advocate of the Cour d'Appel, Brussels, with an

address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, Advocate of the Cour supérieure de Justice of the Grand Duchy of Luxem­ bourg, 6 rue Willy-Goergen, applicant,

v

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY­ , represented by its Legal Adviser, Pierre Mathijsen, acting as Agent, with an address for

1 — Language of the Case: French.

JUDGMENT OF 7.7.1964 — CASE 93/63

tained in the letter of 25 July 1963, and of the procedure underlying the

decisions, including the unfavourable opinion of the Establishment Board;

A decision that the applicant should be integrated under the Staff Regulations of officials of the EAEC at a grade at least equivalent to that of A 7, Step 3, with effect from 17 July 1963, with all the consequences in fact and in law following upon this; An order for the defendant to pay the arrears of remuneration becoming

due following reinstatement; An order for the detendant to pay 50000 FB in reparation for non-

material damage;

3. An order for the defendant to pay interest at the rate of 6% on all the sums which it is ordered to pay;

4. The payment of interest at the rate of 6% on the sums mentioned above;

(c) In the further alternative, for: 1. The award of compensation estimated at 200000 FB for material damage

and 50000 FB for non-material damage;

MINOT v COMMISSION

2. An order for the defendant to pay the sum of 160000 FB in lieu of addi­

tional notice;

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts personal file and Schedule 3 to the

statement of defence), the applicant

The facts may be summarized as fol ws: described the education which she had

By a letter of 21 March 1958 to the received as follows: Commission of the EAEC, the applicant (A) Establishment of higher education:

in charge of a Ladies Higher Com­ sought a post as a servant of Mary, typing pool (Schedule 1 to the applica­ mercial Institute for Girls, from tion and Document No 6 on the personal 1944 to 1948, degree in commercial file). science:

and Document No 6 on the personal No 87 on the personal file). file). On 22 November 1960, Mr Funck, On 23 April 1959, the basic monthly Director-General of Administration and

salary of the applicant was increased to Personnel, gave a written warning to

10200 FB, corresponding to Grade C/10, the applicant with an endorsement on

Step 4, of the ECSC salary scale her file. (Schedule 5 to the statement of defence), This admonition was worded as fol ws:

with effect from 1 January 1959, and on 'On 7 or8 July 1960, you went to the

3 July 1959 to 11475 FB, corresponding servant in charge of the keeping of

that the basic monthly salary of 11475 former employer and that, when she

FB, which she was receiving, corres­ showed it to Mr Wegner, he had advised ponded Grade B 9, Step 3, of the to her to a copy on her file, without put

ECSC scale (Schedule 7 to the statement saying how this was to be done. of defence). In a note of 23 February In accordance with the departmental

1960 addressed to the Director-General memorandum February 1962 of 6 of Administration and replying to the (Schedule 20 to the statement of defence) letter of 14 January 1960, the applicant concerning the bringing up to date of expressed herself as follows: 'I wish, personal files with a view to integration

however, to repeat the reservations under the Staff Regulations, the appli­

which I made in respect of my classifica­ cant was asked by a stencilled letter of tion and my remuneration, which do not 16 March 1962 (Schedule 11 to the

the statement of defence and Document her activities were those of an official of

MINOT v COMMISSION

Category A (Schedule 14 to the state­ primary, intermediate and higher sec­

(Schedule time'

ment of defence). tions as they were at that

As the applicant was slow in providing 22 to the statement of defence). the diplomas requested, the defendant On 15 February 1963, the applicant

duced photocopies of the following does not appear clearly sufficiently diplomas: from my file that I finished my studies in 1. French shorthand, issued on 1 April 1948, that is to say, at the age of 21 1944 by the Institut Meysmans (dis­ I have the honour to send you years,

tinction, 100 words per minute, confirmation relating to the school 1947'

Document No 57 on the personal years 1945-1946 and (Schedule 12 file); to the application).

2. Dutch typing, issued on 1 April 1944 The certificate enclosed, which was

distinc­ by the same Institut (great addressed to the applicant by Mother tion, 30 words per minute, Document Marie-Thérésa, Mother Superior of the No 58 on the personal file); Ladies of Mary at Aalst and dated 22 5. Dutch shorthand, issued on 1­7 April April 1963, was worded as follows: 1943 by the same Institut (great 'In answer to your request, I confirm

distinction, 100 words per minute, that you did in fact follow the courses c Document No 59 on the personal the commercial section of the Institute

By a letter of 26 November 1962, Mr obstacle to her integration, resulting in Tinelli, Director of Personnel, asked the the termination of her employment.

applicant for the diploma of the 'degree The Establishment Board had been in commercial science' which the appli­ given the duty of clearing up this point cant had referred to in her application (Schedule 15 to the statement of de­

form (Schedule 21 to the statement of fence) .

defence). At the meeting of the Establishment The applicant produced a letter dated Board on 18 June 1963 (minutes in 5 December 1962 from Mrs Beel, Head Schedule 16 to the statement of defence),

of the Institute of the Ladies of Mary at the applicant was accused of not being Aalst, certifying that she had 'passed able to account for the years of second­

successfully through the stage of the ary and higher education (modern

in 1948 by the Institute of the Ladies public knowledge. of Mary of Aalst, had been mislaid; At the meeting of the Establishment — that she had been duly entered at Board on 2 July 1963, to which the

that Institute until June 1948, that applicant was not summoned, she followed the courses and that she The chairman informed the Board is ready to prove this; that Mrs Minot had sent him a

— that the disputed remarks in the certificate issued on 22 June 1963 by application form were intended only the Mother Superior of the Ladies of to show the level of higher education Mary of Aalst stating that the person which she had reached and that, if concerned had actually followed the she had wished to take advantage of courses of the Institute during the it for her career in the institution, school years 1944-1948 inclusive and "distinction" she would not have failed to do so, had passed with the

carries out duties of Cate­ since she leaving examination of the advanced gory A level at Euratom. commercial section as it was at that

In conclusion, the person concerned time.

declared that she was ready to produce Doubting the correctness of this

22 June 1963, and letters from industrial —

that Mrs Minot had never attend­

circles at Aalst (Document No 80 on ed the modern humanities courses the personal file and Schedule 12 to the at the Institute of Aalst; statement of defence). — that after her primary education

The certificate of the Mother Superior she went over to the commercial

of the Ladies of Mary states that the course which she followed for 5 applicant 'followed the courses during years; the school years 1944-1945, 1945-1946, — that she left the institute in June

1946-1947 and 1947-1948 and passed 1944, holding a diploma officially "distinction"

advanced studies, such as the inspection of the registers of the

degree in commercial science; Institute. —

that furthermore at the time in At the end of the discussion the

question the Institute did not Mother Superior of the Ladies of

provide teaching at the level com­ Mary gave Mr Funck a new certifi­

parable to that of the advanced cate, restating the facts as shown by legal course; the records, as well as a document —

would follow up these investigations She explained the gaps found to exist on and that the person concerned would this point in the records of the Institute be re-heard' (Minutes in Schedule 17 by the situation of private teaching in to the statement of defence). Belgium at that time. At the meeting of the Establishment On discussing the case, the Board Board on 4 July 1963 the chairman considered that at the end of the inquiry stated in the presence of the applicant: which it had held the following was

'That on 3 July 1963 he was received established:

by the Mother Superior of the Ladies —'That the person concerned wrongly of Mary with whom he discussed declared herself the holder of a Mrs Minot's case in the presence of diploma of modern humanities ob­

the Director of Technical Education. tained in 1944 and of a certificate of

'After checking the records, the advanced commercial education

Director confirmed that they showed equivalent to a degree in commercial

JUDGMENT OF 7.7.1964 — CASE 93/63

claimed to have followed a course of On July 1963 the applicant sent the

advanced studies until 1948, such abovementioned Mr Funck a letter courses not in any case having been informing him, in particular, that she

given at that time in the Institute of was endeavouring to trace persons who the Ladies of Mary; could testify that the studies from 1944 that these claims and the to 1948 were actually pursued. (Sched­ —

unfounded

actions by which the person con­ ule 13 to the application).

signed by Mrs Beel, Head of the atits meeting on 17 July 1963 the

commercial and technical schools of Commission decided to refuse your

the Ladies of Mary at Aalst, is establishment as an official and t(

worded as follows: terminate your engagement.

following yesterday's conversation 'This decision was taken following a we have consulted the records. These new examination of your case by the show that Mrs Minot-Van Nuffel Establishment Board. attended the commercial school from T he investigation which this Board September 1939 until July 1944. In undertook, and during the course of addition she finished the course of the which you have on two occasions had commercial section of the time with the opportunity to submit your com­

distinction' (Schedule 24 to the ments, has enabled it to be estab­

cancelling my certificate of 22 June your letter of engagement, the final 1963'

(Schedule 25 to the statement termination of your duties will take

of defence). effect on the expiration of a period of

The report of the Establishment Board one month from this notification.

to the Commission of the EAEC dated On that date your financial situation 9 July 1963 sets out the reasoning stated will be settled on the basis of the pro­

in the minutes of the on 4 July visions in force and will include in meeting 1963, quoted above, and declares 'that particular the payment of the com­

last paragraph, of the Staff Regulations, ance with the rules of law, as well

she received compensation equal to two as the principles and practices

basic her; months'

salary and a compen­ applicable to days'

satory allowance for the number of Order the defendant to pay to

holiday not taken (Document No 92 on the applicant the remuneration

by the defendant, as well as the fered by the applicant owing to de­ illegal procedure supporting those the measures and wrong­

cisions and particularly the un­ ful acts or omissions committed

favourable opinion of the Estab­ during the integration procedure lishment Board and, on reversing and award the applicant a sum

them: rule that the applicant to be decided by the Court as

shall be integrated under the Compensation and interest, and Staff Regulations of officials of here estimated at 200000 FB for the EAEC in a grade at least material damage and 50000 FB equivalent to Grade A 7, Step 3, for non-material damage; with retroactive effect to 17 July In addition order the defendant 1963 at least, with all the conse­ to pay to the applicant the sum

quences in fact and in law of 160000 FB in lieu of the ad­

application. gration, the decision of dismissal and

Alternatively the integration procedure as un­

Before pronouncing judgment, order the founded­ ; defendant to produce: Order the applicant to pay the costs.

1. The applicant 's letter of resignation —

In its rejoinder that the Court should:

sent to the defendant, in the person 'Declare that the application for of Mr Funck, on 3 July 1959; compensation is inadmissible; 2. The minutes of the meetings of the Alternatively, dismiss it as unfounde ; Establishment Board concerning the Dismiss the application for annulment examination of the applicant's case, of the decision against integration, prior to 18 Tune 1963: the decision of dismissal and the inte­ Order proof by the evidence of witnesses gration procedure, as well as the

which she had performed since her parties may be summarized as follows:

entry into the service nor to the grade T he applicant bases her case on:

which had been envisaged for her; 1. The failure of the defendant to grant 2. (a) The records of the Institute of to the applicant throughout her the Ladies of Mary of Aalst service the grade, the remuneration

relating to the period 1944-1948 and the advantages attaching to the

and the advanced course of duties carried out by her: commercial studies have been 2. The decision against integration and destroyed; of dismissal taken by the defendant (b) The applicant actually followed on 17 July 1963 and notified to the

the course of advanced com­ applicant by letter of 25 July 1963; mercial studies of the Institute of 3. The wrongful acts or omissions com­

B. The defendant contends in its state­ tion, to the extent to which it seeks

of defence that the Court fact that the ment should: compensation owing to the 'Declare that the application for applicant has not been invested with the

compensation is inadmissible or, al­ grade and salary appropriate to her

MINOT v COMMISSION

duties, is inadmissible for the following application that the wrongful act or

four reasons: omission alleged consists in the only 1. The classification of an official de­ fact of having deprived the applicant

1960, Fiddelaar v Commission of the EEC fresh issues in the course of proceedings

(Rec. 1960, p. 1093), admitted that it is prohibited by Article 42 (2) of the

could not substitute itself for the appoint­ Rules of Procedure and requests the

ing authority in order to decide in which Court to set aside discussion of this

grade and step a servant may be second wrongful act or omission, where

engaged. it amounts to a fresh issue. The applicant replies that the wrongful The defendant adds that what the

important than those appropriate to her As to 2 grade and remuneration. The decision referred to cannot apply to the ground The defendant stresses that by virtue of

of complaint of having failed to make the Article 91 of the Staff Regulations duties carried out correspond to the grade appeals concerning a dispute between and step conferred. And even supposing the Community and its servants must be that the applicant has benefited under lodged within 3 months from the publi­

the Staff Regulations of officials during cation of the Regulations (16 June 1962).

the period under consideration, the As this time-limit expired on 14 Septem­ dispute is not concerned with appoint­ ber 1962, this submission is inadmissible. but with promotion or temporary In of its the de­ ment, support allegation, posting, which are spheres within which fendant refers to the judgment given

the administration has no discretionary by the Court on 4 April 1960 in Elz v

power (Articles 7 and 43 et seq. of the High Authority (Case 34/59, Rec. 1960, Staff Regulations). pp. 228 and 229). The defendant states T he defendant replies that the applicant that on the other hand the judgment of

sures, cannot apply in the present case, Regulations of officials. where the wrongful acts or omissions of As to 3 the administration are constituted by a course of conduct consisting of a con­ The defendant alleges — in the event of

tinuous chain of material measures, the Court's deciding that the applicant being illegal measures compelling the has unlimited time in which to make her applicant to carry out tasks not pro­ applicant is not entitled to reply on the

vided for by contract and not corres­ support of a claim for compensation the

ponding to the rank in the service or to applicant is not entitled to reply on the

the salary allotted her. In such a case irregularity of an individual decision the servant will be out of time only at which has become final by the expira­

the expiration of the time-limit which tion of the time-limit for an application begins to run only from the moment of for its annulment.

Statute of the Court of Justice of the submission of inadmissibility is derived EAEC, and to the time-limits laid down from an inaccurate interpretation of the

by those provisions: the applicant's action for compensation and of the

action was thus brought within the wrongful act or omission on which it is Drescribed time-limits. based. The defendant replies that Article 91 of It is true that, in its judgment of 15 the Staff Regulations is applicable, July 1963 in Plaumann v Commission of because it is in fact measures of an the EEC, the Court decided that an individual nature which are in question. administrative measure which has not

The defendant points out that, in order been annulled cannot of itself constitute to try to dispute the second submission of a wrongful act on the part of the ad­

inadmissibility, the applicant had sub­ ministration inflicting damage upon

stituted in her statement in reply, as the those whom it affects and that 'the fact giving rise to the wrongful act or Court cannot by way of an action for omission, 'conduct consisting of a take con­ compensation steps which would

duct towards the applicant, that is to B — On the substance of the case say, if it were to decide that there was in fact no equivalence between the duties The applicant bases her case on the

carried out and the remuneration, the following submissions:

individual decisions fixing such remu­

1. The failure of the defendant to carry neration would nevertheless remain in­ out its obligation to confer upon her, tact. The applicants draws the conclu­

from 1 January 1959 at least, the sion from this that the action for administrative and financial status compensation is admissible without its corresponding to the duties actually first being necessary to seek the annul­

carried out by her; ment of the individual decisions. 2. T he refusal of the opposing party to The defendant replies by referring to its integrate her as an official at a grade previous explanations concerning the step corresponding to her abili­ and new fact giving rise to the wrongful act ties and to the duties carried out by or omission included by the applicant her, which refusal was based on in her statement in reply and argues that inad­ incorrect, insufficient and inadmissi­ the third submission as to equate reasons; bility has not been refuted by the appli­

file that she never submitted a request act or omission in not having granted to the Commission for reclassification. to the applicant the grade and

The letter from the applicant dated remuneration appropriate to her 3 July 1959 and produced in Schedule 5 duties to the application (see above, I, Facts) was actually shown to Mr Wegner, the The applicant states that, although she

superior, but was never sent. secretary/shorthand- applicant's was engaged as a

The applicant replies that it is not a matter typist, she never carried out such duties, of an for failure to act, but of an but to im­ action was assigned much more

action for compensation for damage portant work, which, as her superior

resulting from the positive conduct of later confirmed in the establishment

JUDGMENT OF 7.7.1964 — CASE 93/63

tion of duties and career brackets would concerning the classification of the appli­

become meaningless. cant (see above, A, As to admissibility,

By depriving the applicant of the rights As to 3). concomitant with her duties, the de­ It is true that the applicant 's contract of fendant has made itself liable for a employment is a contract governed by wrongful act or omission with regard to public law, subject to the general rules the Community which it represents as of administrative law and to observance well as with regard to the applicant. of the public interest. However, in It is in tact certain that a service cannot respect of the duties to be carried out

function properly, if its servants do not and the salary to be paid, it is the offer hold appropriate positions. On the of employment of 26 June 1958, ac­

other hand, it is contrary to the most cepted on 1 July 1958, which remains the concept of fairness to de­ legal basis to which it is proper to refer. elementary mand work from a servant without Certain conditions of this contract were

and remuneration attached to those which, according to Article 5 of the

Staff 'admini­ services. Regulations, represents

According to the applicant, the damage advisory duties re­ strative and which

suffered consists in depriving her of the quire university education or equivalent

material and benefits attaching moral professional experience'. The defendant to the duties actually carried out by her has thus acted within the framework and at least from 1 January 1959 until limits of its power of discretion in this 31 August 1963. This damage may be respect and consequently cannot be estimatedconservatively at the sum of accused of any wrongful act or omission,

100000 FB a year, that is to say, 466000 contractual or otherwise.

fication equals 100000 FB per annum, the applicants, but consists equally, 8333 FB that the primarily, in the con­ or per month, and and even actual

applicant thus considers that from 1 duct of the defendant, which made the

January 1959 she should have received a applicant carry out many legal and

monthly salary of 19163 FB corres­ important tasks which were not pro­

ponding to the ECSC Grade A6/1 or vided for in the contract and in fact B6/1, instead of the sum of 10830 FB correspond neither to her grade nor to

which was paid to her. The defendant her remuneration (see above, A, As to

and special administrative and advisory the duties. In order for there to be matter

duties, the drafting of important docu­ for compensation, it is necessary that

ments, attendance at meetings and damage should have been caused by a wrong­ missions abroad. wrongful act or omission and no

The applicant actually protested on ful act or omission can be attributed to several occasions. She asks in this re­ the administration unless it has in fact spect that the Court should order the committed an irregular act.

production of the original of her letter When in her statement in reply the

of 3July 1959 in which she threatened to applicant asks the Court to find that the

the inadmissi­ in face of the new arguments of the object avoiding the of the

bility of her request for compensation applicant.

that the applicant, in her statement in The defendant points out next that the

reply, tries to substitute, as the fact applicant has not specified exactly what

giving rise to the wrongful act or equivalence between payment and the

omission, 'conduct consisting of a con­ work done should consist of, and that, if tinuous chain of material measures' for the applicant describes the 'very im­ duties' 'the fact of not having granted the portant that she has undertaken,

that this fresh period before the entry into force of

issue leads to the same conclusions as the the Staff Regulations between unspeci­

old one, both as to admissibility and the fied duties and grades which did not

very foundation of the request for yet exist. However, in respect of the

The applicant's com­ determin­ compensation. applicant, remuneration was

plaint against the defendant in her ed in relation to the work done, since

defendant, the action of compensation ably because the examination of her

should be dismissed as unfounded. case produced no unfavourable facts, and asks the Court to order the production

2. The refusal of integration and the of the minutes of the meetings of the

consequent dismissal Establishment Board concerning her

case prior to 18 Tune 1963.

(a) The procedure followed for integration The defendant replies that it is true that

of the diplomas held by the applicant duction of which was then requested. It arose, her file was ready for a decision, was the failure of the applicant to

it was by an abuse of power and a misuse produce those documents which caused of procedure that it was held in sus­ a new examination of her case (see pense for reasons having no relationship above I Facts).

to the interest of the service. The defendant submits that the appli­

T he defendant replies that the delay in cants shows no proof of the misuse of

the procedure was caused by the con­ procedure which she alleges.

duct of the applicant who, despite numerous reminders, did not provide (b) The reason for the refusal of integra­ the diplomas mentioned in her applica­ tion and for the dismissal tion form until 24 June 1963 (see above, I, Facts). The applicant states that she is accused

presumptions, it was because of the tially upon her her and ability failure of the defendant to produce experience, which have never been certain documents which are essential to questioned; her file. It follows from Schedule 16 to 2. What in the above letter she de­

'degree'

the statement of defence, containing the scribed as is a course of

Establish­ minutes of the meeting of the studies organized by the Institute of ment Board on18 June 1963, that it the Ladies of Mary at Aalst, not EAEC Com­ was at the request of the leading to the grant of any official mission that a 'new examination' of the diploma but the standard of which is

MINOT v COMMISSION

recognized in the region. ment Board is required to decide not

tions, access to this grade does not 2. that if the secondary studies she made

require university diplomas but only included only five years of studies humanities'

university education or equivalent pro­ whilst 'the lasted for six, fessional it is clear that the expression 'hu­ experience.

The ground of complaint raised cannot in its manities'

was used ordinary justify the decision taken, because it sense, which covers in actual fact the lacks seriousness and relevance. It is to secondary course of studies;

be thought that the apparent reason 3. that she maintains that she actually hides a real unacknowledged reason, followed a course of advanced com­

to diplomas which she did not possess. form under the heading of previous The defendant alleges that the applicant employment are perfectly correct.

did not even carry out the studies which As to the ground of complaint that she

she claimed in her application, and that substituted a new application form for in fact: that which originally appeared in her 1. No be­ advanced course was given file, the applicant points out that the

tween 1944 and 1948 at the Institute defendant has given no proof of this.

ofthe Ladies of Mary at Aalst; The defendant replies by setting out in

2. During this period the applicant had detail the organization of secondary two full-time posts with a firm in education in Belgium. The defendant Aalst and a firm in Brussels; alleges that, in respect of secondary 5. As the application form mentioned education, the applicant followed a 'commercial' 'technical'

secretary is irrelevant, as the Establish- for which a diploma or certificate of

JUDGMENT OF 7.7.1964 — CASE 93/63

studies was awarded', the defendant formed of her dismissal on 25 July 1963 is her duties states that the applicant trying to and that actually finished on create the impression that she pursued 31 August 1963. The Com­ studies more advanced than secondary contractual liability of the

studies, whilst in reality it is a matter of munity is governed by the law applic­

the last two years of secondary studies. able to the contract in question (Article The defendant that, to sum up, states 188 of the EAEC Treaty). the Institute of the Ladies of Mary only According to the applicant, if she had gave primary and secondary education been engaged by a Belgian authority,

during the years 1944 to 1948, and it is the ordinary provisions concerning con­

Chocolaterie-Confiserie Diamant at ing contracts of employment of 20 July Aalst, and from May 1947 to 31 October 1955). 1948 by the firm Noedel Leopold et Cie Following the Belgian practice, and

in Brussels. The defendant produces in taking account of the circumstances, the addition, in respect of the first employ­ applicant, whose employment had ex­

ment, a certificate from Mr Lampers, tended over a period of almost five Choco­ have least previously a partner of the years, could claimed at nine

laterie-Confiserie Diamant (Schedule to months' notice. the rejoinder). Even if the application of the lex loci is to

According to the detendant, it follows be excluded, it does not follow that the

from this information that the applicant length of notice can be left to the dis­

MINOT v COMMISSION

servant at only a month 's notice. cedure has followed the normal course.

The applicant asks the Court to order At the hearing on 22 April 1964 and after the defendant to pay her the sum of having the preliminary report of the 160000 FB corresponding —

to the Judge-Rapporteur and the opinion of value of her remuneration and accom­ the Advocate-General, the First Cham­

panying benefits during the period of ber decided to open the oral procedure

the notice which she should have been in­ without preparatory making any given. quiry.

that the Court in its judgment of 1 mercial science, or to indicate on what

March 1962 25/60, De Bruyn v (Case level the studies of this commercial

European Parliamentary Assembly, Rec. section should be placed in comparison 1962, pp. 61 and 62), decided that one with university studies. month's notice, appearing in a letter of By registered letter of 29 April 1964 to appointment to which the servant had the Registrar, the Secretariat-General

freely consented, has no unjust or of Catholic Education replied that the

oppressive character. Institute in question had never organ­

T he applicant replies that the case of the ized commercial studies at an advanced applicant is quite different from that level, university or non-university, and decided by the Court in the De Bruyn that the diploma issued by this Institute case. In fact the latter only performed could not be considered as equivalent to the duties of a secretary/shorthand- a diploma of advanced studies, such as, typist, and that, moreover, only for a few for example, a degree in commercial

JUDGMENT OF 7.7.1964 — CASE 93/63

Grounds of judgment I —

Admissibility

The defendant alleges that the time-limits laid down by Article 91 of the

Staff Regulations began to run, in respect of the decisions of reclassification

of the applicant dated 23 April 1959, 3 July 1959, 14 January 1960 and 5 July 1960, as from the publication of the Regulations (14 June 1962) and that those time-limits had thus expired by the date on which the application was lodged (25 October 1963); consequently the ground of complaint that

contract of employment in force at that time. In this case the rules in the

Staff Regulations, and particularly those in Article 91, cannot be applied

before the integration of the servant concerned has been properly effected. In fact, recognition in such cases of the immediate applicability of the new Staff Regulations, would be tantamount to prejudicing the integration de­ cision which', apart from the case of officials who have benefited from establish­

ment granted under the system of the old Staff Regulations of officials of the

ECSC, is taken only on the conditions laid down by Articles 102 et seq. of the Staff Regulations of the EEC and EAEC.

In consequence, as the applicant was not integrated at the date on which her appeal was lodged, the time-limits in Article 91 had not yet then begun to run in respect of the ground of complaint that the defendant had not granted the applicant before the entry into force of the Staff Regulations the grade and salary corresponding to her duties.

discretionary power of the administration. This argument must be con­

sidered as touching the substance of the case and not its admissibility.

The defendant has not disputed the admissibility of the applicant's other

conclusions and no objection concerning admissibility need in the present

case be raised by the Court of its own motion.

The application is admissible.

In addition the delay alleged in respect of the unfavourable report is the fault of the applicant herself, who was never able to produce in due form the documents requested of her in order to complete her file.

It follows from the foregoing considerations that the ground of complaint is unfounded.

B — The ground of complaint in respect of the reasons for refusal of establishment and for dismissal

The applicant alleges that the facts relied upon by the Establishment Board to support its unfavourable opinion are inaccurate.

It appears from the letter of 28 April 1964 from the National Secretariat of

JUDGMENT OF 7.7.1964 — CASE 93/63

1. The performance by the applicant of duties higher than those of her grade and salary

The applicant who was engaged on 1 July 1958 to carry out 'administrative duties' was classified in Category C.

'drafting' She was soon given duties, which justified her classification in Category B.

She was actually classified in the latter Category as from 1 January 1960.

'planning' The applicant claims that her duties were really duties and

related to Category A.

The applicant has not been able to prove that she in fact carried out duties

MINOT v COMMISSION

related by their nature to Category A. Furthermore, she did not possess any of the qualifications normally required for promotion to that grade. It follows from the foregoing that the applicant has no right to compensation under this heading.

2. The damage from decision integration dis­ suffered the against and of

missal

Any right of the applicant to compensation for the damage which the de­ cision against integration and of dismissal may have caused her must in this case be denied. In fact the disputed decision does not show itself to be vitiated

ance with that provided for in the applicant's contract of employment.

In application of Article 102 (2) of the Staff Regulations, the applicant has in addition received compensation corresponding to two months' basic salary, as provided for in Article 34 of the Regulations. In the present case this grant, which is directly provided for by the Regulations, appears suf­

ficient for it to be decided that the defendant has discharged its obligations concerning notice.

It follows from the foregoing considerations that the conclusions of the

applicant must be dismissed.

III — Costs

The applicant has been unsuccessful in all her submissions.

For the reasons set out above each party must bear its own costs.

On those grounds,

Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Raporteu; 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 Atomic Energy Community;

Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Articles 69, 70 and 95;

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 7 July 1964.

A. Van Houtte A. Trabucchi Registrar President of the First Chamber

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL LAGRANGE <ap note>1</ap note> DELIVERED ON 17 TUNE 1964­

Mr President, with the regularity of the administrative

Members of the Court, position which she held under the

contract of employment by which she The conclusions in the application by was bound to the administration (Eura­ Mrs Minot (nee Van Nuffel) fall into tom Commission) until her dismissal and two categories. The first are concerned result in a request for compensation of