C-15/64

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (FIRST CHAMBER) 15 DECEMBER 19661

Jean Moreau v Commission of the EAEC

Joined Cases 15/64 and 60/65

Summary

1. Officials — Integration under the State Regulations — Aims of the relevant provisions (Staff Regulations of Officials of the EAEC, Article 102)

2. Officials — Contractual servants — Application of the Staff Regulations to such persons — Revaluation of post — Automatic transfer of the step in the new grade — Not per­ missible — Application by analogy of the provisions of the Staff Regulations relating to the promotion of officials (Staff Regulations of Officials of the EAEC, Article 102)

1 — Language of the Case: French.

JUDGMENT OF 15. 12. 1966 — JOINED CASES 15/64 AND 60/65

Luxembourg at the Secretariat of the Legal Department of the European Execu­ tives, 2 place de Metz,

defendant,

Applications having as their principal objects:

— Case 15/64: the annulment of the implied decision of refusal to classify the appli­ cant in Grade A 3;

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts before and after his integration under the Staff Regulations. The facts may be summarized as follows: By an application lodged at the Registry on The applicant joined the Press and Infor­ 29 April 1964 the applicant challenged the mation Department of the Commission of implied decision of refusal to be inferred the EAEC on 1 September 1960, his remu­ from the silence of the Commission. neration being equivalent to the salary re­ Although the defendant acknowledged ceived at that time by an official of the ECSC from the very beginning of the administra­ in Grade A 4, Step 4. tive proceedings the applicant's right to be When he was integrated pursuant to the classified in Grade A 3 in accordance with Staff Regulations he was classified in Grade the principle that posts correspond to cer­ A 4, Step 4, with effect from 1 January 1962, tain grades as laid down in Annex I to the his seniority in that step dating from 1 Sep­ Staff Regulations, it stated that it could not tember 1960. grant the applicant's request, because the By letter of 21 February 1964 addressed to Council had not authorized in its budget the the President of the Commission of the post for which it had applied for this pur­ EAEC the applicant made a request through pose. official channels for classification in Grade Subsequently the Council decided on 13 A 3 from 1 January 1962 based on the fact October 1964 to convert the post in Grade that he occupied a post in this grade both A 4 occupied by the applicant into a post

MOREAU v COMMISSION

5. Order the Commission to pay to the ap tions, without prejudice to the rights of Mr plicant by way of damages and interest Moreau in this respect'. thereon for non-material damage the By a decision of 14 September 1965 the sum of 1 franc subject to the right to Commission determined finally the appli amend this sum as he may deem neces cant's position under the Staff Regulations sary in the course of the proceedings; by establishing him in Step 2, with seniority

authority'. accordance with the provisions of Article 46 of the Staff Regulations; and whereas it is The applicant in his reply repeats his orig necessary therefore to apply these provi inal conclusions, withdraws claim No 2 and asks that claim No 4 be reserved. sions to the case of Mr Moreau; and where as under this Article Mr Moreau must be The defendant contends in its rejoinder that the Court should: classified in Step 2 of Grade A3 with senior ity in that step from 1 October 1961'. 'Without prejudice to any issue, in particu By an application lodged on 13 December lar that of admissibility, which the Court 1965 the applicant contested this decision. may raise of its own motion: — take note that the Commission appoint II — Conclusions of the parties ed the applicant to Grade A 3, Step 2, with effect from 1 January 1962 by The applicant claims in his application in decisions of 13 January and 9 September Case 15/64 that the Court should: 1965;

JUDGMENT OF 15. 12. 1966 — JOINED CASES 15/64 AND 60/65

resulting financial consequences and arrears of salary from that date; III — Submissions and arguments of — rule that the applicant's step in his grade the parties at the present time be determined after taking into account the biennial ad The submission and arguments of the par vancement laid down in Article 44 of the ties may be summarized as follows: Staff Regulations; — order the defendant to bear the costs'. Case 15/64 The defendant contends that the Court should: As the Commission decided during the '— dismiss the application as unfounded; course of the proceedings to assign the — order the applicant to bear the costs in applicant Grade A 3, which is the main accordance with conditions laid down in purpose of Case 15/64, it is unnecessary to Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure'. examine the submissions and arguments put The applicant claims in his reply that the forward in support of this claim by the Court should: applicant. '— take note that the applicant's conclu With regard to the claim for compensation sions in his application stand as orig for non-material damage which the appli inally pleaded with the exception of the cant maintains that he suffered from the second conclusion which must now be previous refusal of his request by the Com read as follows: mission, the defendant denies that any such rule that the applicant is to be classified damage occurred. It submits that it is well- in Grade A 3, Step 4, with effect from known that the refusal was caused because 1 January 1962 with the benefit of all the no such post was authorized in the budget resulting financial consequences and and that, as a result, no one could have arrears of salary at that date; regarded the retention of the applicant in as a subsidiary matter: Grade A 4 as an indication of the import — request the institutions which are not ance of his duties or his competence in those parties to these proceedings to produce duties. all such information as the Court shall During the oral procedure the applicant deem necessary for the purpose of these stated that he did not wish to pursue this proceedings and, in particular, to re

MOREAU v COMMISSION

Regulations. His case is that, before the before the entry into force of the Staff Reg Staff Regulations were applied to him, he ulations. The automatic application of such had by implication been accorded Grade an abstract principle would in many cases A 3, Step 4, which corresponds, according cause the unjustified passing-over of serv to such Staff Regulations, to the duties ants with greater seniority and occupying a which he performed before they entered higher grade by younger servants who, al into force and which he still performs. though they performed the same duties, The defendant denies that the applicant had were in a lower grade before the posts were by implication been accorded Grade A 3, revalued. Step 4, before the Staff Regulations were In order to determine the step in this case,

of this Article would be completely mean tions, and the applicant Mr Moreau, who ingless. was engaged as a contractual servant, he is The defendant replies that the word 'im not in the position to rely on the criterion pliedly' in Article 102 cannot refer to the laid down in the Collotti Judgment. grading to which servants were entitled after On this point the defendant refers to the the harmonization of posts and grades, for opinion of Mr Advocate-General Gand in the very good reason that this Article refers Case 43/64, that the absence of any reliable to the grade and step accorded before the method of assigning a grade and step under Staff Regulations were applied to them. the system adopted before the Staff Regula Moreover it cannot be denied that before tions entered into force by reference to the the applicant was integrated he was only system adopted by the EAEC does not per ever classified in Grade A 4, Step 4. mit a valid comparison which could lead with any certainty to a more favourable The submission relating to the revaluation evaluation of the same duties and conse of the applicant's post quently to a revaluation of the post. 1 he defendant emphasizes that in tact under The applicant submits that in any case, even the system adopted before the Staff Regula though the Staff Regulations are silent on tions entered into force the grade and step this point, it must be accepted that, when were not primarily determined according to

Collotti v Court of Justice of the EEC, can comparison of posts and therefore for the not be used in this case. The principle put revaluation of a post. In addition, under the

Staff Regulations of the ECSC, there is only Regulations. It is therefore useless from one grade for Mr Collotti's post and there this point of view to ask whether the situa was therefore no risk that he would be tion of Mr Collotti is on all fours with that unjustifiably passed over. On the other hand of Mr Moreau. the post of head of division, for which there The defendant raises the objection that the were two grades, is restricted under the new criterion adopted by the Court in the Staff Regulations to one grade, which gives Collotti Judgment is not a legislative rule rise to the serious risk mentioned above. but a legal solution intended to decide in an The applicant does not accept the argument equitable manner a specific issue of some that the principle upon which the Collotti difficulty having regard to the particular Judgment is based is not a generally appli

ation Department of the European Com which steps were assigned by implication munities, some of whom are younger than under the system adopted before the Staff he is, have benefited from reclassifications Regulations entered into force. Since the of step by the Commission of the EEC, Commission of the EEC based its decisions which, although they do not follow the on grading chiefly on age, treated as an Collotti Judgment, do not result either from indication of experience, it is now in a posi the automatic application of Article 46 of tion in cases similar to that of the applicant the Staff Regulations. to embark on a kind of restructuring of With regard to the view that the revaluation career brackets by adopting a system which of a post is not an issue in this case because would make it possible to avoid the main of the change-over from a system of engag difficulty in the Collotti Judgment, that is to ing officials under contracts of service which say, the passing-over of officials in Grade was adopted before the Staff Regulations A 3 by the heads of division in Grade A 4. entered into force to a system under which This system of ascertaining what steps serv their conditions of employment were gov ants would have been assigned according to erned by these Staff Regulations, the appli their age, if they had been classified in cant replies that, even in the particular case Grade A 3 on recruitment, is not applicable of Mr Collotti, it is not absolutely certain to officials of the Commission of the EAEC, that the position which he occupied corre because that Commission, in assigning sponded to a clearly defined post in the steps, assessed the merits of candidates with

MOREAU v COMMISSION

which must be taken for its rectification. He fore, if Mr Moreau had been accorded emphasizes that it is important that the Grade A 3, he would have been assigned a Court in this case should give a clear state step corresponding to the latter salary ment of the rules and criteria upon the basis which the Commission intended to grant of which the Commission must determine him, that is to say, Step 1 (28 900 francs) or, the administrative position of the applicant. at best, Step 2 (30 300 francs). The latter The defendant takes the view that this does classification corresponds to the one assign not amount to a submission but to one of ed to him by the contested decision. the heads of the conclusions themselves.

must prevail. Therefore, even if the princi ple of restructuring of grading by reclassify The procedure took the normal course. ing the steps in each grade is accepted, it By order of 10 January 1966 the two cases must be implemented in accordance with were joined for the purpose of procedure the rules applicable to the departments of and judgment. the EAEC. By letter of 8 June 1966 lodged at the Reg Finally the defendant does not accept the istry on 13 June 1966 the applicant requested arguments which minimize the importance the Court to order that the minutes relating of the difference between the legal position to item No 10 of the 144th sitting of the of Mr Collotti under the Staff Regulations Council of the EAEC held at Brussels on 13 and the legal position of the applicant under October 1964 be produced and added to the his contract of service. It cannot in fact be documents of the case. denied that the step in a grade in the case of The First Chamber of the Court decided a contractual servant is not determined in that it was unnecessary to ask for produc accordance with the same principles and tion of the said document and opened the does not have the same effect as the step in oral procedure without any preparatory a grade accorded pursuant to the Staff Reg inquiry. The parties presented oral argu ulations of the EAEC. In fact under the ment at the hearing on 5 October 1966. Staff Regulations Mr Moreau would not The Advocate-General delivered his opin have been able to be assigned Step 4 when ion on 19 October 1966. he was engaged.

Case 15/64

Following the decision of the Commission of 13 January 1965 assigning the applicant Grade A 3 the main conclusions of the application no longer have any purpose.

During the oral procedure the applicant stated that he did not intend to maintain his claim for compensation for non-material damage.

Therefore this case need only be examined for the purposes of making a decision as to costs.

Case 60/65

The applicant submits that before the Staff Regulations were applied to him he had by implication been accorded Grade A 3, Step 4.

Therefore this submission is unfounded.

The applicant submits that he has in any event the right to keep in the new grade accorded as a result of the revaluation of his post under the new Staff Regulations the step which he was assigned in his previous grade.

In the absence of any specific reference in the Staff Regulations to this situation, the application of the criterion of the simple transference of the step to the new grade would be understandable if the previous classification of the post were governed by the previous Staff Regulations of the ECSC or covered only one grade.

In fact under the Staff Regulations the assignment of a step is governed by precise and uniform rules.

On the other hand under the system of contractual engagements applied to the applicant before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of Officials the rules for determining the step in a grade were not so strict.

The implied assignment of a high step in a certain grade without being in any way connected with the seniority in the service or experience of the servant could in particular have been intended to enable him to be given, having regard to other considerations, the desired level of remuneration.

JUDGMENT OF 15. 12. 1966 — JOINED CASES 13/64 AND 60/65

Article 46 of the Staff Regulations relating to the promotion of officials lays down precise rules expressly designed to avoid any discrimination in salaries between officials moving up from a lower to a higher grade.

In the absence of any provision in the Staff Regulations applying precisely to the case in question, it is appropriate to accept that this provision may properly be applied by analogy to the applicant.

Therefore the applicant's submission is unfounded.

Costs

Under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs. However, under Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure institutions shall bear their own costs in actions by officials of the Communities.

On those grounds,

Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinions of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Commu­ nity; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Atomic Energy Community, especially Articles 91 and 102; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Articles 69 and 70;

MOREAU v COMMISSION

THE COURT (First Chamber)

hereby:

1. Declares that Application 15/64 no longer has any purpose;

Registrar President of the First Chamber

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL ROEMER DELIVERED ON 19 OCTOBER 19661

Mr President, ment to the next incremental step he attain­ Members of the Court, ed Step 5 of Grade A 4 on 1 September 1962. The applicant in the two joined cases upon As the applicant at the time of his integra­ which I give my opinion today is an official tion—as the Commission also acknowl­ of the European Atomic Energy Commun­ edges—was head of division in the Joint ity. His duties with the Commission of the Press and Information Department of the EAEC commenced on 1 September 1960 at European Communities, he made a com­ a salary which, according to the statements plaint in this capacity through official of the Commission during the proceedings, channels to the President of the Commission corresponded to a classification in Grade 4, of the EAEC on 21 February 1964 to be Step 4, of the Staff Regulations of the classified in Grade A 3 with effect from 1 European Coal and Steel Community. January 1962. As his request was not grant­ After the entry into force of the Staff Reg­ ed within a period of two months (a reply ulations of Officials of the European Atomic contained in a letter from the President of Energy Community he was, in accordance the Board of Administration of the Joint with Article 102 of those Regulations, by a Press and Information Department categor­ decision of 28 February 1963 integrated ically refusing the application because of the from 1 January 1962 in Grade A 4, Step 4, absence of a corresponding post in the his seniority dating from 1 September 1960. detailed list of posts only reached the appli­ As a result of the regular biennial advance­ cant on 27 April 1964) the applicant lodged