C-60/72

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (SECOND CHAMBER) 8 MAY 1973 1

Anna Maria Campogrande V Commission of the European Communities

Case 60/72

Officials — Disputes with the administration — Complaint — Meaning (Staff Regulations, Art. 90 (2)).

A letter based on unofficial information, complaint against an act adversely addressed to the Commission several affecting an official within the meaning weeks before the notification of the of Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations. contested decision, does not constitute a

In Case 60/72

JUDGMENT OF 8 . 5. 1973 — CASE 60/72

THE COURT (Second Chamber)

composed of: P. Pescatore, President of Chamber, H. Kutscher and M. Sørensen (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate-General: A. Trabucchi Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Miss Anna Maria Campogrande entered However, before the result of the the Commission's service as a member of competition was thus communicated to the auxiliary staff on 1 August 1965. She her, she had on 18 May 1972 addressed became established on 1 April 1967 in a letter to Mr Coppé, the member of the grade B 3. Commission responsible for questions of administration. In this letter, she referred In September 1971, a series of notices of to the conditions stated in the internal competitions to be based on competition notice, according to which both qualifications and tests was published (COM/A/264-268) with a every candidate obtaining a total of 48 points or more was to be included on view to filling vacant posts for administrators in career bracket A 7/A 6. the reserve list which it was the purpose A further communication divided the of the competition to establish. She then quoted certain information which had options into groups and stated that: 'The Selection Boards for these ■ reached her — without indicating the competitions are required to inform the source — according to which the total candidates admitted to the tests of the had been raised to 53 points. Assuming that this alteration accounted for her exact documentation with which they should acquaint themselves in order to failure, she pointed out that a prepare for the specific oral tests.' retrospective change in the conditions of the competition was inadmissible and Miss Campogrande submitted her could lead to the annulment of the application for competition COM/A/ reserve list following an application 264. before the Court of Justice. She recalled, The Selection Board decided at first not in addition, the special circumstances in to admit her to the competition, but which she had been admitted, and which after several complaints she was had created in her case 'a psychological informed, on 22 March 1972, that she handicap'. She finally requested that in would be allowed to present herself at drawing up the reserve list allowance the tests arranged for the following day. should be made for these circumstances.

By letter of 11 July 1972, Mr Coppé By memorandum lodged on 6 October replied that having been informed of the 1972, the Commission, in conformity Selection Boards' decisions on 31 May, with Article 91 of the Rules of he was able to state that the conditions Procedure, requested the Court to give a in the competition notices had been ruling as to the admissibility of the observed. Only candidates obtaining the application without going into the minimum 48 points were included on the merits, and to declare the application lists of suitable candidates drawn up by inadmissible. the Boards; this figure had not been The applicant, in her observations on changed. the objection of inadmissibility, lodged on 1 December 1972, requested the Court primarily to dismiss the objection, and alternatively to join it to the merits.

notices. She alleges, chiefly, that 'there the Court (Second Chamber) decided to was manipulation of the marks' and, open the oral procedure on the objection more particularly, that she had originally without any preparatory inquiry. obtained 52 points, but that her score The parties submitted their oral was subsequently reduced to 47, so that she failed to attain the minimum 48 observations at the hearing on 22 March points. She maintains that there has been 1973. The Advocate-General presented his opinion at the hearing on 5 April a breach of the principle of equality

JUDGMENT OF 8. J. 1973 — CASE 60/72

letter. Coppé replied to her on 11 July 1972, he had at his disposal all the material As to form, it was not submitted necessary to do this. through the applicant's immediate superior and it contained no indication The applicant is astonished that her that any reference to Article 90 was approach to Mr Coppé could be intended. interpreted as private solicitation. A request or complaint addressed by an As to substance, the letter did not official as such, concerning his or her contain the substance of a complaint administrative position, to an authority within the meaning of Article 90. It was as such, constitutes an application and not directed against a decision: indeed it not a private approach. could not have been so directed, since at The applicant points out that she did not this date the Selection Board's decision ask Mr Coppé to intervene in the had not yet been reached. It simply Selection Board's work, which in so far requested Mr Coppé's personal as concerned drawing up the list of intervention with the Selection Board, suitable candidates, was completed on before the end of its tasks, in order to 15 May 1972, that is to say three days have the applicant included on the list of before her letter of 18 May 1972. suitable candidates to be drawn up by Further, the applicant points out that if

application. Further, in his reply of 11 judgment in the Marcato case 44/71 (14 July 1972, Mr Coppé did not raise the June 1972, Rec. 1972, p. 427).

4 The question of admissibility must be resolved on the basis of the rules in force at the date on which the application was submitted.

5 The first step is accordingly to consider whether the applicant has submitted to the Commission a prior complaint against an act adversely affecting her.

6 On this point the applicant relies upon a letter which she addressed on 18 May 1972 to the member of the Commission responsible for administrative matters.

JUDGMENT OF 8. 5. 1973 — CASE 60/72

7 This letter was based, according to the applicant's own statements, on certain information which had come to her, but of which she does not give the source.

8 The result of her performance in the competition was not, however, notified to the applicant until 15 June, that is several weeks after the dispatch of the abovementioned letter.

On those grounds,

Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the oral observations of the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Protocols on the Statute of the Court of Justice; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, especially Articles 90 and 91; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Articles 69, 70 and 91;

CAMPOGRANDE v COMMISSION

THE COURT (Second Chamber)

hereby:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

DELIVERED ON 5 APRIL 1973 1

Mr President, its solution will undoubtedly constitute Members of the Court, an important precedent for the clarification of the problems arising in The introduction into the system for the relation to the definition of the protection of officials' rights and interests requirement now imposed of an provided by the Regulations, of a administrative appeal, which henceforth preliminary requirement to be complied constitutes a condition of admissibility with before judicial proceedings can be of an application before this Court, in begun, must necessarily occasion conformity with the new text of Article discussion and argument as to the 91 of the Staff Regulations resulting criteria for applying the new rule, and from the amendment brought about by especially for establishing the minimum Regulation No 1473/72 of the Council condition for such requirement to be of 30 Tune 1972. considered discharged. The interest of the parties in obtaining The present case, at the current stage of your judgment on the admissibility of argument as to the admissibility of the the present application is, however, only proceedings introducing the action, relative. Since there is no doubt as to the offers a typical case for your judgment; admissibility of the new application,

1 — Translated from the Italian.