C-52/64

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (SECOND CHAMBER) <ap note>1</ap note> 14 DECEMBER 1965

bred Pfloeschner

v Commission of the European Economic Community

Case 52/64

Summary

1. Officials Appeals — Expiry of time-limit Request or complaint within the — —

1. A request or complaint through meaning of Article 90 of the Staff official channels which is not made Regulations of officials is under con­

within the period allowed for filing sideration amounts to a failure to

appeals to the Court cannot, upon give a decision. the expiry of this period, escape (Jr. paragraph 5, summary in Joined

being barred. time- Cases 42 and 49/59, Rec. 1961, p.

2. A reply 106. given toy the administration

informing the official concerned that 3. Cf. paragraph 4, summary in Case

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY , represented by its Legal Adviser, Louis de la Fontaine, with an address for service in Luxem­

bourg at the office of Henri Manzanarès, Secretary of the Legal Department of the European Executives, 2 place de Metz,

defendant, 1 — Language of the Case: French.

JUDGMENT OF 14. 12. 1965 — CASE 52/64

Application for the classification of the applicant in Grade L/A45 Step 5;

THE COURT (Second Chamber)

parties

The facts may be fol­ summarized as

lows: The applicant claims that the Court The applicant entered the service of should:

the Commission on 11 July 1958. On 'Declare the present application to be his integration Staff Regula­ under the admissible and well founded; tions he was classified in Grade L/B, de­ therefore, by varying the implied Step 4. On 21 December 1962 he was cision of the Commission of the Euro­ appointed an established official in pean Economic Community refusing the Grade L/A5, Step 5. By decision of request: 23 September 1963 he was classified in declare the apphcant was wrongly classi­

Grade L/A4, Step 2, as from 1 January fied by the decisions of 21 September 1962. 1962 and 23 September 1963; By letters of 24 July and 30 September declare that the applicant shall be clas­

1964 addressed to the Director-General sified in Grade L/A4, Step 5, with of Administration and the Commission 16 in Step and months'

1964. visions'.

PFLOESCHNER v COMMISSION

III — Submissions and fore constitutes a new factor capable of

arguments of the reviving the applicant's right of action. parties It is, moreover, a general rule in both

national and Community administrations The submissions and arguments of the that a judicial decision given in favour follows: interpre­ parties may be summarized as of an official on a question of

tation of the Staff Regulations inures to Admissibility the benefit of all others in the same

for this purpose. administrative complaint alone could not

As the applicant had received from the be the basis of an appeal to the Court administration no reply to his complaint unless the express or implied decision within the two-month period he brought to which it gives rise is a genuine de­

time- the present application within the cision rather than a mere confirmation

limit laid down Staff Regula­ decision. In the latter case by the of an earlier

tions. the application is inadmissible if, when (b) Further the complaint is submitted, the original In view of the judgment given by the decision can no longer be contested. In

Court in Joined Cases 42 and 49/59, this instance, the applicant's complaint

different attitude. to this judgment is limited to the parties Therefore a new decision exists which to the action and thus does not extend

can be contested. to third parties such as the applicant.

(c) Further Such a result is in accordance with the

Good faith is to be presumed on the general principles of law in force in part of the administration as much as Member States and is based on the The interpreta­ on the part of officials. obvious need to maintain stability in tion of the Staff Regulations which ap­ administrative arrangements.

pears in the decision of 23 September It is a mistake to cite the judgment in

1963 must therefore be presumed to Joined Cases 42 and 49/59 in order to

to the present action in which the same which is quite contrary to the practice facts do not exist. In fact: followed by the institutions. The appli­

based this judg­ — the same parties were involved on cant's complaint on

the one hand in Joined Cases 42. ment must, therefore, either lead the

and 49/59 and on the other in Joined administration to reconsider the grounds

Cases 32 and 33/58 and the subject- for its earlier decision and then to

matter of the two cases was con­ decide apply to this decision either to

ed against this bar as it cannot frustrate administrative law a rigorous application the principle of legal certainty. of this principle is mitigated by excep­

The applicant replies that he has never tions which are all the more justified claimed that the Court had formulated in new or developing legal systems such the principle that a judgment given in as Community law. favour of one official must automatically The development of this law is largely apply to all those in the same or in carried out by the judgments of the

similar situations. He merely stated Court, which for this reason are often

that in the past, in accordance with a likely to constitute a 'new factor'. In then current administrative practice, such a system, to uphold a decision decisions given in favour of one official which is contrary to the principles of

were always applied to others in the law contained in a judgment of the

same situation. Court constitutes the adoption of a

of the Court could only constitute a sible to invoke the principle of the 'new factor' factor in in defen­ new the particular circum­ this case. Finally, the

stances of fact which characterized the dant refers to the judgment of the

dispute in that case, but it expressed a Court in Joined Cases 50, 51, 53, 54 principle of general application which and 57/64.

extends beyond that dispute namely, On the substance of the case that a judgment of the Court constitutes a new factor if it obliges the administra­ The applicant makes the preliminary tion to reconsider the grounds for its observation that the integration of offi­ earlier decision. cials in the Language Service must be

PFLOESCHNER v COMMISSION

carried out on the basis of Article 102 Interpretation Section', within the

performing duties described in those post; secondly, although, as in Case Regulations 'Head; of Interpretation 70/63, it is quite possible for the new

Section'; he is prepared to demonstrate classification of posts introduced by the

the accuracy of this claim. Staff Regulations to have, indirectly or

This being so, he should have been otherwise, a retroactive effect as regards

accorded Grade L/A5, Step 5. By a a officials of the ECSC, this cannot apply decision of 23 September 1963 the to servants whose positions before the

appointing authority acknowledged his entry into force of the Regulations were right to classification in L/A4 but, at governed by contract. In such circum­

officials, the defendant states that the an official during his career to increas­ classification of the applicant in L/A5, ing remuneration. ■

Step 5, was in accordance with Article After leaving to the discretion or the

102 of the Staff Regulations and that Court the question of the meaning of his reclassification in L/A4 was decided paragraphs (i) and (4) of Article 102 on outside the procedure laid down by of 'the Staff Regulations the applicant

mat Article. maintains in his reply that there is no

The defendant here observes that the real substance to the argument that 'post' post of 'Head of Interpretation Section', the (and not the 'duties') of the Section' Regula­ had was only created by the Staff 'Head of Interpretation tions. Before the entry into force of only been created by these Regulations. these Regulations the applicant held In fact, the applicant was already per­

'Interpreter', the post of with the result forming the duties of 'Assistant Head Division' that in accordance with Article 102 (1) of the Interpretation before (4)'

pretation Division were to be put in this instance and that for this reason

the same category as those of 'Head of the criteria laid down in the judgment

JUDGMENT OF 14. 12. 1965 — CASE 52/64

in Case 70/63 could not be applied. the arguments set out in the statement

He claims that the distinction made by of defence. the defendant in this connexion be­

tween the position of officials of the IV — Procedure ECSC and that of servants of the EEC appointed under contract in the period The procedure followed the normal

The applicant has referred to the Court the failure of the Commission to take a decision on his letters of 24 July and 30 September 1964 concerning the

classification awarded him by decision of 23 September 1963. The defendant his application was in fact against the decision of 23 Septem­ maintains that

ber 1963 and that it was therefore inadmissible for being out of time.

Under Article 91 (2) of the Staff Regulations of officials appeals must be filed within a period of three months from the date of notification to the person

concerned of the decision in dispute.

A request or complaint through official channels which is not made within

PFLOESCHNER v COMMISSION

The applicant relies on the new factor which, he maintains, is constituted by the judgment in Case 70/63 delivered on 7 July 1964 in an action between the Court and one of its servants. The judgment annulled an individual decision regarding the classification of that servant.

The only persons concerned by the legal effects of a judgment of the Court

annulling a by an institution are parties to the action and measure taken

those persons directly affected by the measure which is annulled. Such a

judgment can only constitute a new factor and cause the periods for bringing appeals to run afresh as regards these parties and persons.

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 Economic Community;

Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Economic Community and of the European Atomic Energy Community, especially Articles 90 and 91;

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

THE COURT (Second Chamber)

A. Van Houtte W. Strauß Registrar President of the Second Chamber

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL GAND <ap note>1</ap note> DELIVERED ON 10 NOVEMBER 1965

Mr President, L/B, Step 4. By decision of 21 Decem­ Members of the Court, ber 1962, he was integrated and classi­

fied in Grade L/A5, Step 5, as. from 1 Although the three applications referred January 1962. By a later decision of

to you under Nos 52/64, 12/65 and 23 September 1963 he was reclassified

47/65 are made by different applicants, in Grade L/A4, Step 2, also with

admissibility. official concerned made an application

to the Court. I (b) The case or Mr Bauer, the appli­

cant 12/65, is very similar. in Case

Let us consider the facts according to Like Mr Pfloeschner, he is a member the order in which 'the applications of the Translation Department of the

were filed. Commission of the EEC. On 21 (a) In 1958 Mr Pfloeschner, the appli­ December 1962 he was integrated in cant in Case 52/64, entered the service Grade L/A5, Step 8, as from 1 January of the Commission of the EEC as an 1962, and by decision of 23 September interpreter and on entry into force the 1963 was reclassified as from the same

of the Staff Regulations held Grade date in Grade L/A4, Step 5. On 30