C-49/64
ECLI:EU:C:1965:74
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61964CJ0049
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (FIRST CHAMBER) 8 JULY 1965<apnote>1</apnote>
Emmanuel Stipperger v High Authority of the ECSC
Case 49/64
Summary
Costs — Costs unreasonably caused to be incurred (Rules of Procedure, Article 69 (3))
If an applicant has been misled must be borne by the administra and induced to make his applica tion. tion by reason of the ambiguous Cf. para. 4, summary in Case 14/63, drafting of a measure by an institu Rec. 1963, p. 723; para. 4, summary tion then he has been unreasonably in Cases 16/59, 17/59 and 18/50, Rec. caused to incur his costs which 1960, p. 49.
In Case 49/64
EMMANUEL STIPPERGER, an official of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community, represented by Ernest Arendt, Avocat-Avoué, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of the above, 6 rue Willy-Goergen,
applicant,
v
HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, repre sented by its Legal Adviser, Pierre Lamoureux, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at its offices, 2 place de Metz,
defendant,
Application for annulment of a decision by the President of the High Authority of 12 October 1964 and, so far as is necessary, of an implied decision of rejection by the President of the High Authority of a request made on 1 July 1964 under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations,
1 — Language of the Case: French.
JUDGMENT OF 8. 7. 1965 — CASE 49/64
THE COURT (First Chamber)
composed of: R. Lecourt (Rapporteur), President, L. Delvaux and A. Trabucchi, Judges,
Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Issues of fact and of law
I — Facts express yourself. In fact it appears clearly from the documents in my pos Mr Emmanuel Stipperger entered the session that, contrary to what you be service of the High Authority as a lieve, your immediate superiors are translator and was established as an satisfied with your abilities. They had official in 1958. He was classified first in on their own initiative proposed your Grade A7, Step 3, then in career promotion to Grade L/A5 long before bracket L/A6-L/A5 in Grade L/A6, you made your first request. In my Step 1. In June 1962 a double pro opinion, therefore, your complaint rests, motion in step put him in Step 3 of at least in part, upon a misunderstand the same grade. ing. After various fruitless representations, I would say to you further that on 22 Mr Stipperger in accordance with July I gave a favourable reply to the Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of promotion proposal concerning you; the ECSC on 10 July 1964 made a within the framework of the execution request to the President of the High of recent decisions, your promotion will Authority for classification in the career be effective as from 1 August 1964. A bracket L/A5-L/A4 which corresponds copy of the decision will reach you to the following duties: 'Expert trans shortly.' lator, reviser able to translate particu Mr Stipperger was actually promoted larly difficult texts'. as from 1 August 1964 to Grade L/A5 By a note of 12 October (No 17 934), in the career bracket L/A6-L/A5. more than two months after the appli Having in the meanwhile unsuccessfully cant's request, the President of the applied for the vacant post for reviser High Authority informed the applicant which had been advertised, Mr Stipper as follows: ger did not consider himself satisfied 'I have been informed of your letters by the promotion thus granted. He of .10 March and 8 and 10 July 1964 lodged an appeal, directed primarily in which you complain of your adminis against the note of the President, cited trative situation within the Language above, and secondarily against the im Service; they have had my careful at plied decision of refusal of his request tention. I am astonished at the emotional of 10 July. terms in which you feel you should This appeal was lodged at the Court
STIPPERGER v HIGH AUTHORITY
Registry on 10 November 1964, under (a) that he is an 'expert translator' number 49/64. within the meaning of career bracket L/A5-L/A4; II — Conclusions of the (b) that he is given particularly diffi cult translations; parties (c) that in respect of matters con The applicant first claims that the Court cerning which he is expert, the should: applicant is, in a general way, his own reviser; '1. Declare the present appeal admis Order the defendant to make avail sible; able the documents whose numbers 2. On the substance of the case, hold are quoted in the body of the present it to be justified: reply, as well as those on fists 1 and and consequently hold: 2: that the applicant has the right to be The defendant contends that the Court classified in career bracket L/A5- should: L/A4 of the table of duties, as an expert translator carrying out par '—dismiss the appeal in its entirety as ticularly difficult translations: unfounded; hold in consequence: — order the applicant to pay the costs, that the promotion from which the the expenditure incurred by the applicant benefited with effect from 1 High Authority remaining however August 1964 should be in career its own responsibility in accordance with Article 70 of 'the Rules of bracket L/A5-L/A4 and not in car eer bracket L/A6-L/A5; Procedure.'
consequently to hold: Principally: That as from 1 August 1964 the ap III — Summary of the sub plicant shall be put into the Grade missions and argu A4 of career bracket L/A5-L/A4; ments of the parties Alternatively: The table of definitions of duties de And in any event: in the Grade A5 of career bracket L/A5-L/A4, and fines career bracket L/A6-L/A5 as follows: not in Grade A5 of career bracket L/A6-L/A5; 'Experienced translator who is special 3. Order the defendant to pay the costs ized in certain specific fields or who of the proceedings'. can give evidence of extensive linguistic knowledge;' In his statement in reply he claimed that the Court should: The same table defines one of the two
'1. order that the documents numbered alternatives falling within career bracket L/A5-L/A4 as follows: 110, 115 and 116 should be removed from the applicant's personal file. 'Expert translator, reviser able to trans 2. Reject the conclusions of the defen late particularly difficult texts.' dant and find for the applicant on The applicant considers that the duties the basis of the conclusions in the which he carries out within the lingu originating application; istic framework correspond not to car Alternatively: eer bracket L/A6-L/A5, but to career Place it on record that the applicant bracket L/A5-L/A4, in accordance with offers to prove by all legal means, the definition of duties laid down by and particularly by witnesses and ex the appointing authority in accordance pert evidence, the following facts: with Article 5 of the Regulations.
JUDGMENT OF 8. 7. 1965 — CASE 49/64
The applicant regards himself as an reviser cannot carry out the two tasks 'expert translator' because of the tech he is qualified to perform on the same nicality and the difficulty of the trans translation. The fact that certain tech lations that he is called upon to make, nical translations are not submitted to because of his previous scientific and revision is intended to accelerate the technical training, because of his ex running of a department which is in tensive linguistic knowledge (French, different to style in working documents. English, Dutch, Italian, Spanish and Lastly linguistic and technical knowl Russian), because of the fact that many edge do not necessarily make a trans of his translations remained unrevised lator into an 'expert translator'. The by reason of their technical character, definition of the duties of a 'translator' and because of the consultations which is proof of this. The defendant states he frequently gives to colleagues or to in the second place that in its detailed other institutions (Parliament, Council list of posts there is no post vacant of Ministers, Court of Justice). corresponding to the post sought by For all these reasons, the applicant asks, the applicant. by virtue of Articles 36 and 62 of the Since the decision of refusal of the Regulations, for the classification of High Authority is legal, it cannot there 'expert translator' in career bracket fore be annulled. L/A5-L/A4, the promotion which was The applicant states in his reply that granted to him not having had this the defendant mentions in its state effect. ment in defence assessments—unfavour He asks for the application of the able to him—of which he had no pre principles established in the judgment vious knowledge and that the said as in Case 70/63 (Collotti v Court of sessments appear in his personal file Justice) to the fixing of his classification. in defiance of the provisions of Article The defendant states that the person 26 of the Staff Regulations. He therefore concerned has not the qualifications and asks for the withdrawal from his personal capacity required for the employment file of the relevant documents. sought and that he was ranked last The defendant has replied on this point among candidates who took part in a in its rejoinder: recent competition. 'In any event, it is clear that the fact According to the defendant, an official that the documents containing these of career bracket L/A5-L/A4 must ful assessments and appearing in the per fil at the same time the two functions sonal file of the applicant will be with of reviser and of expert translator. On this drawn from it cannot have any effect subject the syntax of the phrase which upon the substance of the case … ' describes this function is significant. In the oral proceedings it expressed its On the one hand, it is incorrect that intention of removing the disputed the applicant ever fulfilled the duties of documents from the file. a reviser. On the other hand the appli cant's statement that he revised his IV—Procedure own translations contradicts the argu ment which he puts forward elsewhere The procedure followed the normal and is in itself contradictory. A trans course and does not call for any com lator who is both an expert and a ment.
Grounds of judgment Mr Emmanuel Stipperger has made an application on the basis of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations against the High Authority of the European Coal
STIPPERGER v HIGH AUTHORITY
and Steel Community, concerning a decision of 12 October 1964 of the President of that institution classifying him in Grade L/A 5, not of career bracket L/A 5-L/A 4, but of career bracket L/A 6-L/A 5, and an implied decision of refusal arising from a failure to reply to an appeal through official channels made by the said applicant on 10 July 1964 on the basis of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations.
He asks the Court to recognize, with all necessary consequences, his right to be classified in career bracket L/A 5-L/A 4 of the table of definitions of duties, as an expert translator given particularly difficult translations. In his reply he has furthermore requested an order for the removal of three docu ments from his personal file.
The request concerning the classification of the applicant
The admissibility of the appeal is not the subject of any dispute.
The applicant claims the right to be classified in career bracket L/A 5-L/A 4 of the table of definitions of duties in the Language Service and asserts that the work given to him comes within the duties corresponding to that career bracket.
The High Authority is opposed to this classification because career bracket L/A 5-L/A 4 is that of reviser, a duty which is not carried out by the Applicant.
It follows from the 'definition of duties and powers attaching to the basic posts provided for in Annex I of the Staff Regulations' that, under the head ing 'Posts in the Language Service', career bracket L/A 5-L/A 4 covers the basic post described as that of 'Reviser' corresponding to the duties described as: 'Expert translator, reviser able to translate particularly difficult texts'.
The wording in question does not alone make it possible to determine whether career bracket L/A 5-L/A 4 is open only to those who have the qualities both of an expert translator and of a reviser or is meant to devote the simple alternative between the two duties of expert translator or reviser. In laying down the necessity for the person concerned to possess capabilities sufficient for him to be given particularly difficult translations, the provision in question appears to have made this a pre-requisite for both expert trans lators and revisers in the disputed career bracket. However the ambiguity of
JUDGMENT OF 8. 7. 1965 — CASE 49/64
the comma separating the two names and the significant absence of the word 'and' which the author of the Annex could have inserted between them, constitute no reason for failing to recognize the general sense of the whole of the table, which distinguishes the basic post of reviser (L/A 5-L/A 4) from that of translator and interpreter (L/A 6-L/A 5). The basic post of reviser itself corresponds to three categories of duties to which the concept of 'reviser' is central, one concerning the 'Reviser of translations' (called 'Reviser') the next the disputed duty called 'Reviser-Translator', and the last finally concerning the principal interpreter with qualifications and respon sibility 'similar to those of a reviser-translator'.
Thus in spite of the equivocal nature of the disputed definition there appears to follow from the table as a whole a plan for reserving career bracket L/A 5-L/A 4 to officials or servants carrying out the duties of reviser, that is to say, whose activity is at least in part concerned with translations already carried out.
It has not been seriously claimed by the applicant that he carried out such duties. His statement that he revised his own translations is not sufficient, by reason of the mere fact that these were sometimes not revised by anybody, to cause him to be regarded as a reviser.
No matter how specialized the applicant's abilities may be, and his value and abilities are in no way disputed, it is of no interest in the present case to inquire whether he can be given particularly difficult translations and thus be regarded as an 'expert translator' since he cannot claim to have the duties of a reviser.
The application is thus unfounded.
The request concerning the disputed documents appearing in the applicant's personal file
The applicant has asked the Court to order that the documents numbered 110, 115 and 116 should be removed from his personal file. The conclusions on this point were included only in the reply because of the new fact, which appeared during the course of proceedings and consists of the discovery of the said documents. The defendant has expressed in the course of the pro ceedings its intention to remove these documents. A formal note will be made of this.
STIPPERGER v HIGH AUTHORITY
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 Pro cedure, the administration shall bear its own costs. It is proper to take into account the fact that the applicant was misled and was induced to make his application by reason of the ambiguous drafting of the definition of duties which he believed to be applicable to his case. It appears equitable to apply to him the second subparagraph of Article 69 (3) of the Rules of Procedure and to make the High Authority pay the applicant's costs.
On those grounds,
Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Community; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of the European Coal and Steel Community and its implementing provisions; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Article 69;
THE COURT (First Chamber)
hereby:
I. Dismisses Application No 49/64 as unfounded;
2. Takes note that the defendant is to remove from the applicant's personal file documents numbered 110, 115 and 116 which have appeared therein;
3. Orders the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Lecourt Delvaux Trabucchi
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 8 July 1965.
A. Van Houtte R. Lecourt
Registrar President of the First Chamber