C-131/82

APPLICATION for the annulment of the defendant's decisions to retire the applicant and not to assign him to another post,

THE COURT (Third Chamber)

composed of: U. Everling, President of Chamber, Lord Mackenzie Stuart and Y. Galmot, Judges,

Advocate General: G. F. Mancini Registrar: J. A. Pompe, Deputy Registrar

gives the present

ANGELINI v COMMISSION

I — Facts and written procedure laid down on 26 March 1980 on the basis of the Spierenburg and Ortoli reports, ' the Commission planned to dispense with certain posts of chief The applicant is a former official of the adviser. Upon being invited to submit his Commission classified in Grade A 2. He observations, the applicant pointed out took up his duties with the Commission an apparent contradiction between the in 1959. He was assigned to Directorate creation of his post of chief adviser on General IX for Personnel and Admin­ the basis of the Spierenburg and Ortoli istration as from 1963. From 1970 to report and the abolition of the same post on the basis of the same report. The 1980 he was Director of the General Commission nevertheless decided on 8 Services and Office Equipment Direc­ July 1981 to apply Article 50 of the Staff torate. At that time, the Commission Regulations. The applicant was retired in decided to reduce the number of the interests of the service with effect administrative units and, in particular, to from 1 November 1981. He was not replace three of the directorates in that assigned to another post in his category directorate general, including Direc­ corresponding to his grade and he torate C of which the applicant was the therefore received the benefits payable in director, by only two directorates. The such cases. applicant was appointed to the post of chief adviser with the following responsibilities: traineeships within the Commission, organization of training for and visits by civil servants of the Member States, exchanges for officials and The applicant lodged a complaint under relations with the European Schools. Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations, One year later, the Commission decided seeking the annulment of the decision to reorganize its departments and the not to accept his application for the post responsibilities thereof and in particular of Director of Personnel and annulment decided on 28 July 1981 to transfer the of the decision whereby that post was organization of traineeships to the Sec­ filled. retariat General and exchanges of officials to the Careers Division, whilst a special division was created to deal with relations with the European Schools. The applicant lodged a second complaint on 27 October 1981, seeking annulment of the defendant's decision not to accept The applicant was informed by the his application for the post of director President of the Commission in a letter of the Directorate for General Admin- dated 4 May 1981 that it was intended to adopt a measure retiring him on the basis of Article 50 of the Staff Regulations. I — Bulletin of the European Communities 1980, No 3, point 2.3.3; Fourteenth General Report on the Within the framework of the guidelines Activities of the Commission, point 29.

A. Primarily: According to the applicant, the decision retiring him does not state sufficiently, in 1. Annul the defendant's decision of the prescribed manner, the grounds on 8 July 1981 retiring the applicant; which it is based. The justification for the decision retiring him was worded as 2. Annul the implied decision follows: "The Commission has decided, rejecting the complaint which was as part of a general internal reorganiz­ lodged in that behalf on 29 ation, to dispense with certain posts of September 1981; chief adviser, including that held by Mr Angelini ..." That statement is entirely B. In the alternative: general and contains no specific details. A precise and specific statement of 3. Annul the defendant's decision not reasons is required, particularly because to assign the applicant to another a reorganization of the Directorate post in his category corresponding General had already taken place one to his grade; year earlier. The reasons for which a 4. Annual the defendant's decisions, post which was regarded as necessary in notified on 25 August 1981 and the interests of the service in June 1980 4 November 1981, not to accept had become unnecessary, likewise in the the applicant's application for the interests of the service, in July 1981

ANGELINI v COMMISSION

functioning". The contested decision defendant envisaged creating for its erroneously indicates that in its letter delegation in Brasilia. of 24 June 1981 the Commission told the applicant of the reasons for the envisaged measure. In that letter no details were provided and no reply was given to the applicant's observations. Once again there were only generalities. The applicant refers to the judgment of the Court of 11 May 1978 in Case 34/77 Oslizlok [1978] ECR 1099, paragraph 18

vacancies. The only reasons which can requirement for the decision retiring him justify retirement pursuant to Article 50 to state the grounds on which it was of the Staff Regulations are those based based, the applicant was nevertheless on the objective requirements of the aware of the reasons which induced the service or on an assessment of the Commission to consider retiring him. individual qualities of officials in the Those reasons are apparent from the light of those requirements. Article 50 of letters of 4 May and 24 June 1981.

JUDGMENT OF 28. 9. 1983 — CASE 131/82

submit his observations and in particular The Commission defends its right to to put forward the arguments which, in adopt a series of measures retiring his opinion, militated in favour of his individual officials in the interests of the post of chief adviser being maintained. service, provided that none of such His arguments did not convince the Com­ measures is in itself in any way vitiated. mission, which decided to dispense with It does not dispute the fact that the the post in question. The Commission is measures in question were to some not obliged to give further explanations extent adopted in order to facilitate for its decision by stating the reasons for the recruitment of officials of Greek which it considered the applicant's post nationality but they were also adopted of chief adviser no longer to fulfil a with a view to reorganization along the genuine requirement of the service. A lines recommended by the Spierenburg fortiori, it does not have to explain to the and Ortoli reports. In particular, there applicant why it chooses to maintain was a critical evaluation of certain posts certain posts of chief adviser. of chief adviser and a reappraisal of management functions. In other words, the various measures were in each case adopted on the basis of objective requirements of the service or the There is no contradiction between the individual qualities of the officials creation of a post in June 1980 and its concerned in the light of such require­ abolition in July 1981. The creation of a ments, or both of those factors. Having post of chief adviser to the Director decided to dispense with a post of chief General, to which the applicant was adviser, the Commission is not obliged to assigned, was a secondary effect and not promote or transfer the holder of the the cause of the reorganization whereby post to another vacant post before three directorates were replaced by only abolishing his post. two.

before the communication of 17 July applicants post and, consequently, 1981 from Mr O'Kennedy, the member retires him on the basis of Article 50 of of the Commission with responsibility in the Staff Regulations. The decision that area, regarding reorganization of adopted by the Commission on 28 July the directorate general and before the 1981 has another purpose, namely to preparation of a document concerning give effect, with regard to the organ that reorganization dated 24 July 1981, ization of the internal structure of the for discussions on the agenda of the directorate general, to a series of Commission's meeting of 28 July 1981. decisions adopted by the Commission The statement of reasons on which the during the previous weeks.

That date is the the decision to dismiss officials on the effective date of the decision of 8 July pretext of retiring them, the lists of 1981 to retire the applicant as chief victims prepared on a priori basis without adviser. The question whether the any consideration of specific situations decision to abolish the post preceded or and before recourse to the proper followed the decision to retire the procedure, are, the applicant claims, applicant is entirely incidental. The only substantiated. important question is whether or not the abolition of the post of chief adviser was in the interests of .the service. In its rejoinder the Commission does not deny that the retirement measures may possibly have created a degree of uneasiness on the part of certain staff B — The decision not to assign the representatives. This case is concerned applicant to another post not with an examination of the Commission's personnel policy but with a decision as to the legality of the The applicant objects to the fact that he contested measures. It is apparent from was not assigned to another post the . letter of 4 May 1981 from the corresponding to his grade and that he President of the Commission to the was not promoted to the grade of deputy applicant that at that time the director general in Directorate General Commission was considering dispensing IX, even though he possessed all the necessary abilities for at least one of with certain posts of chief adviser, those posts. including that of the applicant.

JUDGMENT OF 28. 9. 1983 — CASE 131/82

director of the General Services and The Commission replies that the third Offices Equipment Directorate from paragraph of Article 50 refers exclusively 1970 to 1980 and finally chief adviser to the assignment of an official who is from 1980 to 1981. As regards the post deprived of his post to another post in of Director of General Administration his category or service corresponding to (Directorate General IX-B), that direc­ his grade. There is no question therefore torate is the result of the merger in June of assignment to a post in a higher 1980 of the old Directorate B for grade, such as the post of deputy Welfare, Training and Staff Information director general in Directorate General and the old Directorate C for General IX. Moreover, since the applicant did Services and Office Equipment, of which not apply for that post, he could not the applicant had been the director since have been promoted to it. 1970. The other vacant post was that of Director of Personnel. The applicant was suitable for that post but his capabilities were not considered and, moreover, the reasons for the rejection of his appli­ cation were not stated. As regards reassignment to another post corresponding to a retired official's grade, the Commission is vested with wide discretionary power. Its decision not to reassign an official to another post in the same grade does not require a formal statement of the grounds on which it is based. The Commission As regards the post of Director of satisfied its obligation to give the official Personnel, an official in Grade A 3 was a prior opportunity to safeguard his appointed to that post by promotion. rights, in particular at a meeting with his The applicant maintains that an official Director General during which his in Grade A 2 who is retired must be attention was drawn to 15 vacant A 2 reassigned to a vacant post in his grade posts. for which he has the required qualifi­ cations in preference to an official in Grade A3 .

Valsesia (in alphabetical order) deserved Accident Insurance and Building Loins particular consideration. Following that and Welfare departments, in which areas opinion, the Commission, on a proposal the successful candidate had considerable from Commissioner O'Kennedy, decided practical experience, which was adjudged to fill the post by appointing Mr to be superior to that of the applicant. Valsesia. The Commission denies that the applicant had any right to be assigned to the post in preference to an official in Grade A 3. By deciding not to assign the applicant to that post, by virtue of the fact that he did not have the In his rejoinder the applicant refers again required experience in general personnel to his practical experience in the two management required by the vacancy principal areas of responsibility of che notice, the Commission remained within Directorate General for Personnel and the confines of the wide discretionary Administration. He does not understand power vested in it in that regard. As the meaning of the term "general regards the other post, that of Director personnel management". The vacancy of General Administration, the advisory notice referred to a thorough knowledge committee also considered the applicant's of personnel policy and management. application as a matter of priority but By virtue of the experience which he took the view that the conditions for his acquired over a period of seven years being recommended to the Commission in the Directorate for Personnel the were not satisfied. On completion of its applicant, amongst his duties as chief proceedings, the committee came to the adviser, was responsible for giving conclusion that of the applications those courses to very senior civil servants from of Mr Pratley and Mr Reynier (in the Member States, explaining the alphabetical order) deserved particular various personnel management methods consideration. and practices of the Commission.

Directorate IX B the major part of the Personnel and explains the procedure responsibilities, the committee noted that followed for the appointment of a new at the time of that reorganization the Director of Personnel. The person Commission did not appoint Mr Angelini appointed, Mr Valsesia, has for many as head of the new unit. The Com­ years competently dealt with all mission, for its part, noted that on the personnel matters at the Ispra Joint occasion of that reorganization it had Research Centre and the appointing already taken a decision not to appoint authority, after hearing the opinion of Mr Angelini to be the head of the new the advisory committee, considered that unit. The opinion of the advisory he was the most competent person for committee is legally vitiated in so far as the post of Director of Personnel. it does not refer to the applicant's qualifications on the pretext that the decision had already been taken, and the Commission's decision does not state the grounds on which it is based. The reply to the applicant's complaint to the effect that the decision not to accept his The Commission is of the opinion that application was due to the fact that the whenever a preferential right in favour of directorate had a significant number of certain categories of official exists in the new responsibilities by comparison with law governing European officials that the old administrative unit is not correct: priority is the subject of an express the applicant's application was rejected provision, and there is no such express because a decision had already been provision in this instance. The argument taken to reject it. as to stability of. employment is hardly relevant in the case of A 1 and A 2 officials for whom the Staff Regulations reserve special treatment.

Decision

1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 23 April 1982, Mr Angelini a former official in Grade A 2 of the Commission of the European Communities, brought an action for the annulment of the Commission's decision of 8 July 1981 retiring him and also for the annulment of the decision not to assign him to another post in his category corresponding to his grade.

2 The applicant was Director for General Services and Office Equipment in i r c t o r a t e Ge era D e n l IX for Personnel and Administration from1970to 1980. Following a reorganization of that directorate general, the number of directorates was reduced and the applicant was appointed chief adviser with various responsibilities which did not fall within the areas of responsibility of the other departments: in-service traineeships and exchanges for officials, and relations with the European Schools.

3 One year later, on 28 July 1981, the Commission again reorganized the Directorate General for Personnel and Administration, in particular in order to transfer the organization of in-service traineeships to the Secretariat General and that of exchanges for officials to the Careers Division. A special division was created for relations with the European Schools.

JUDGMENT OF 28. 9. 1983 — CASE 131/82

4 By letter of 4 May 1981 from the President of the Commission, the applicant wits informed that the Commission was considering retiring him on the basis of Article 50 of the Staff Regulations of Officials. After taking note ot the observations of the applicant, the Commission decided on 8 July_ 1981 to retire him in the interests of the service with effect from 1 November 1981. Snce the applicant had not been assigned to another post in his category corresponding to his grade, he received the allowance payable in such cases.

ANGELINI v COMMISSION

s The grounds relied upon by the Commission in its letter of 4 May 1980 and in the contested decision refer to the guidelines adopted by the Commission at its meeting of 26 March 1980 primarily on the basis of the Spierenburg and Ortoh reports. According to the Commission the reorganization was to affect more particularly the senior posts and to involve the abolition of certain posts of chief adviser, including the applicant's post.

ii Finally, it is to be noted that the applicant had an opportunity to safeguard his interests, in so far as he was advised of the Commission's intentions by a letter of 4 May 1981. In that letter the Commission stated that it considered

JUDGMENT OF 28. 9. 1983 — CASE 131/82

the applicant's post no longer to be necessary. The applicant was thereby provided with a sufficient basis to enable him to draw attention to the advantages which might accrue to the Commission from the retention of a post of chief adviser with a view to the discharge of the duties attaching to that post until that time.

n The application for annulment of the decision to retire the applicant must therefore be rejected.

u In the alternative, the applicant claims that'in the light of his experience he should have been assigned to another post, in particular the post of Director of Personnel or that of Director for General Administration. He maintains that his qualifications for those posts were not examined and that the decisions rejecting his applications did not state the grounds on which they were based. Subsequently, an official in Grade A 3 was appointed-to the post of Director of Personnel. According to the applicant, an official in Urade A 2 who has been retired ought to be reassigned to a post for which he has the required skills in preference to an official in Grade A3 . Finally, the applicant considers that he should have been appointed to the post ot deputy director general in the Directorate General for Personnel and Administration.

u It should be noted in that connection that the Commission is vested with a wide discretionary power with regard to any decision to reassign othcials to another post Ín the same grade. The officials whom the Commission has decided to retire do not enjoy any preference in that respect over the other officials who qualify for consideration. They must however have an adequate opportunity properly to safeguard their interests.

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Third Chamber)

hereby:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the parties to pay their own costs.

Everling Mackenzie Stuart Galmot