C-10/64

2. Officials — Grading — No right to a particular post based on an internal proposal for the improvement of the service

1. Where the terms of a table of defini­ cient to make the measure liable to tions of duties do not correspond to be annulled for infringement of clearly distinct concepts, their appli­ Article 5 of the Staff Regulations and cation is to a certain extent within of measures in implementation the discretion of the administration. thereof. The fact that the application of such 2. Cf. para. 2, summary, Joined Cases terms may be open to criticism in a 109/63 and 13/64, Rec. 1964, p. particular case is not of itself suffi­ 1297.

In Case 10/64

RENÉ JULLIEN, an official of the Commission of the European Economic Community, represented by Marcel Slusny, Advocate of the Cour d'Appel, Brussels, lecturer at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, avocat-avoué, 6 rue Willy-Goergen, applicant,

v

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, represented by its Legal Adviser, Louis de la Fontaine, with an address for service at the offices of Henri Manzanarès, Secretary of the Legal Department of the European Executives, 2 place de Metz, defendant,

2. Damages in respect of arrears of salary, together with compensation for non-material damage,

THE COURT (Second Chamber)

composed of: A. M. Donner, President (Rapporteur), W. Strauß and R. Monaco, Judges,

Advocate-General: J. Gand Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

cation to the Court of Justice on 26 and in its rejoinder it contends that the March 1964. Court should: The procedure took place in accordance ‘— dismiss the application on all counts with the required formalities. At the as unfounded; hearing in open court on 25 January — make an order as to costs in accord­ 1965 the Advocate-General delivered his ance with the appropriate rules.' opinion, proposing that the application should be dismissed. III — Submissions and argu­ ments of the parties II — Conclusions of the parties The applicant asserts that the Commis­ sion has refused to classify him in The applicant claims that the Court career bracket A4/A5, that is to say, should : has refused to appoint him, as from 1 January 1962, at least to Grade A5 and '1. Rule that the implied decision re­ to such step thereof as is just, whilst jecting his request of 4 December 1963 is null and void; well before the Staff Regulations came into force, and in any event at the 2. Rule that his appointment is null and void to the extent that it classified moment when, on 12 December 1963, him in Grade B 1, Step 4; they first applied to him, the applicant 3. Rule that the Commission must had by implication reached at least Grade A5 because he carried out duties classify the applicant in Grade A5, corresponding to career bracket A4/A5. and in such step thereof as is just, with effect from 1 January 1962; According to the defendant Article 102 (1) of the Staff Regulations only con­ 4. Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of one franc in cerns decisions of integration and not respect of arrears of salary, the ap­ decisions concerning the possible re­ classification of established officials by plicant reserving the right to amend this amount during the course of the applying the principle set out in Article proceedings; 5 of and Annex I to the Staff Regula­ 5. Order the Commission to pay to the tions correlating duties to grades. applicant the sum of one franc by The applicant, in referring to the case- law of the Court, holds the view that way of compensation for non-material for the purposes of his application it is damage, the applicant reserving the sufficient for him to show that the right to amend this amount during duties which he has in fact carried out the course of the proceedings; 6. Order the defendant to pay the correspond to an A4/A5 career as read costs.’ from Annex I to the Staff Regulations and from the definition of duties adop­ The defendant in its statement of de­ ted on 29 July 1963. After outlining fence contends that the Court should: the development of the organization of the departments concerned—from which ‘— declare that the application is in­ it appears that from the beginning he admissible in so far as it is directed has been the head of the section re­ against Mr Jullien's appointment as sponsible for the administrative manage­ an official in Grade B 1; ment of all the buildings occupied by — dismiss the application on all counts the EEC at Brussels—the applicant also as unfounded; puts forward the view that these tasks — make an order as to costs in accord­ are of vital importance to the adminis­ ance with the appropriate rules;' tration of the Commission.

Starting with the nature of the duties posts set out in Annex I to the Staff carried out by him, the applicant then Regulations is decided solely on the considers to which 'basic post' they basis of the nature of the tasks entailed correspond (B 1 or A4/A5). An objec­ in that post. An analysis of the duties tive analysis leads, according to him, to carried out by the applicant shows that the conclusion that his duties are refer­ his post corresponds to the basic post able to career bracket A4/A5, and to of an Administrative Assistant, not to no other. According to the applicant, that of a Principal Administrator. Con­ nobody could refute the fact that his trary to what the applicant alleges, the duties include planning, advisory or duties which he performs do not in­ supervisory duties in one sector of acti­ clude planning duties. His tasks are vity, corresponding to the said career limited to a preparatory stage, the real bracket A4/A5. Furthermore the Com­ responsibility for negotiation with public mission itself takes the view that the authorities and with private persons be­ duties which he carried out correspond ing in no way his concern. to career bracket A4/A5, since in the Finally, it is true that the Commission draft budget for 1964 it asked for asked for additional Grade A5 posts to several additional A5 posts, in particular be included in the 1964 budget and in order to be able to reclassify the that, in the event of this request being applicant. met, it was the intention of the Com­ The defendant replies that the duties mission to allocate some of these posts carried out by Mr Jullien are those of to the Buildings, Furniture and Fittings a Principal Assistant in Grade B 1. The Division. However, this fact only con­ duties relating to the department for concerns the relationship between the which he is responsible do not appear Commission and the budgetary authority to be different in kind from those relat­ and shows no more than the Commiss­ ing to the same departments in the other ion's motives in asking for additional institutions of the Community and with­ posts. The applicant cannot draw any out exception these departments are conclusions from this in favour of his supervised by officials of Category B. case. Nothing emerges from the request, The duties allocated to the applicant in or the reasons for it, to show an inten­ the post which he holds have never tion on the part of the defendant to been altered and therefore the nature reclassify Mr Jullien, still less to re­ of the post has not been changed. The classify him with retroactive effect. At defendant states that the level at which all events the posts asked for were not a post is placed in the order of basic granted.

Thus, in refusing to place him in the grade corresponding to the said posts, the Commission has infringed the final subparagraph of Article 5 and Annex I to the Staff Regulations, as well as its decision of 29 July 1963.

It has not been alleged, still less established, that all subdivisions coming directly under a division are sectors of activity within the meaning of the said definition with the result that their respective heads are to be classified in the career bracket which the applicant claims.

Furthermore, the terms 'sector of activity' and ‘administrative unit’ do not correspond to clearly distinct concepts and therefore their application to the different subdivisions of an institution is to a certain extent discretionary, and depends on the general distribution of administrative responsibilities. Whilst the application of these concepts to a particular case may give rise to criticism, this fact alone is not of itself sufficient to render the measure liable to annulment for infringement of Article 5 of the Staff Regulations and measures in implementation thereof.

Although it is true that the arguments adduced by the applicant might justify calling the subdivision which he directs a particular sector of activity of a Division, they in no way exclude other evaluations. Furthermore the sub­ division directed by the applicant has never been referred to as a ‘sector of activity' in an official decision.

JUDGMENT OF 24. 2. 1965 — CASE 10/64

The tasks undertaken by the subdivision which the applicant directs, namely the administrative management of all the buildings occupied by the depart­ ments of the Commission in Brussels do not require as far as their direction is concerned specialized knowledge of university level and do not, therefore, require it to be described as a specialized department.

The applicant has failed in all his submissions and must therefore bear the costs of the present proceedings, except those which the Commission has itself incurred, in accordance with Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure.

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;

JULLIEN v COMMISSION

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Com­ munity; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Economic Community, especially Articles 5, 91, 102 and Annex I; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the Euro­ pean Communities, especially Articles 69 and 70;

THE COURT (Second Chamber)

DELIVERED ON 25 JANUARY 1965<apnote>1</apnote>

Mr President, 1958. By letter dated 8 August 1959 Members of the Court, he was informed that he had been ap­ pointed in Grade B 7, Step 4, by the The details which have been brought Committee of Chairmen. Thereafter a to your attention by the written and decision dated 5 October 1961 classi­ oral procedures, coupled with the fact fied him in Grade B 6, Step 4, as from that the applicant's case closely re­ 1 January 1961. sembles that of Charles Muller, which After the entry into force of the Staff gave rise to a judgment of this Chamber Regulations he was established in Grade of 16 December last, will enable me to B 1, Step 4, by a decision dated 12 pass rapidly over the facts which form December 1962, in accordance with the basis of the dispute now before Article 102. It is not disputed that this you. in fact corresponded to Grade B 6, Mr Jullien, a junior executive officer at Step 4, which he previously held. He the French Ministry of Reconstruction, was at the same time assigned to the was taken into the service of the Com­ Directorate of Internal Affairs, Build­ mission of the EEC as from 1 June ings, Furniture and Conferences Division,

1 - Translated from the French.