C-193/82

JUDGMENT OF 28. 9. 1983 - JOINED CASES 193-198/82

3. Whilst the duties and powers assigned 4. A Community institution is entitled to to an official must on the whole be expect that senior officials shall be in keeping with the post which sufficiently adaptable to fill posts of corresponds to the grade he occupies different kinds. in the scale of posts that principle of equivalence between grade and post does not apply in respect of posts within the same grades.

In Joined Cases 193 to 198/82

MARIA ROSANI ,

LUIGI DELLA GROCE DI DOJOLA,

PIETRO LAROSA,

APPLICATIONS for the annulment of the decisions of 14 May 1982 assigning the applicants to posts of reviser/principal translator in Grade LA 4, of the notices of adjustment of 15 September 1981 stating that the applicants were placed at the disposal of the department referred to therein as revisers/principal translators and of the decisions of 14 May 1V8Z rejecting the applicants' complaints against the notices of adjustment ot 15 September 1981,

ROSANI v COUNCIL

THE COURT ( Third Chamber )

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

Advocate General : P . VerLoren van Themaat Registrar : J. A. Pompe , Deputy Registrar

gives the following

JUDGMENT OF 28. 9. 1983 - JOINED CASES 193-198/82

In application of that provision, and officals of the General Secretariat of the following the amendment to the Staff Council of the European Communities. Regulations of 4 May 1978, the Council adopted on 17 March 1981 a decision That new decision defines the duties of amending that of 7 October 1963 officals in Career Bracket LA 5/LA 4 as defining the duties and powers of the follows :

Head of Translation Supervises the work of a group engage« LA 5/LA 4 in translation, conference interpretation or Interpretation Group teminology or documentation, or of group specialized in other linguisti fields.

Reviser, principal translator Qualified official charged with carrying out: the revision of translations and the translation of texts; work related to terminology and documentation in the linguistic field; other specialized work in the linguistic field. Principal interpreter

memoranda rejected the complaints and All the applicants worked for the Council as revisers in Grade LA 4. In communicated Decisions Nos 432 to accordance with the new definition of 437/82 confirming that rejection. duties, the administration sent the ap­ The applicants brought actions for the plicants notices of adjustment dated 15 annulment of those decisions, of the September 1981 signed by Mr Spe nee, memoranda of 14 May 1982 and of the informing them that they remained "at notices of adjustment of 15 September the disposal of Directorate II of Direc­ 1981. The actions were registered at the torate-General A, ... as reviser/principal Court Registry on 30 July 1982. translator .. .".

1. In its statement of defence the B. Declare that the applicants are and defendant contends that the actions are remain assigned to the basic post not admissible. As a result of the of reviser. applicants' complaints the notices of adjustment concerning the applicants were withdrawn because they had not 3. Order the defendant to pay the costs. been signed by the appointing authority. They were replaced by the decisions of 14 May 1982, the annulment of which The defendant contends that the Court the applicants now seek. should:

According to Article 91 (2) of the Staff "Dismiss the applicants' claims for the Regulations of Officials: "An appeal to annulment of the decisions of the the Court of Justice of the European appointing authority assigning each of Communities shall lie only if the them to a post of reviser/principal appointing authority has previously had a translator as inadmissible, inasmuch as complaint submitted to it pursuant to such claims are premature; Article 90 (2) within the period pre­ scribed therein . . .". -

Dismiss the claims for the annulment of the notices of adjustment of 15 The complaints of December 1981 September 1981 signed by Mr Spence, predated the decisions of 14 May 1982 inasmuch as such claims are devoid of and cannot therefore be regarded as purpose; directed against those decisions. More­ over, the applicants have recognized that that objection is well founded, since on Dismiss the claims for the annulment of 23 July 1982, they "individually" lodged the decisions of 14 May 1982 of the complaints expressly directed against the appointing authority rejecting their com­ decisions of 14 May 1982. In addition,

As to that, the applicants note in their As regards that point the applicants state reply that: in their reply that if the decisions of 14 May 1982 were annulled by the Court, as is sought, the notices of adjustment of 1. The decisions of 14 May 1982 in no 15 September 1981 would again take way alter the substance of the notices effect and it is therefore necessary, in of adjustment which were the subject those circumstances, that they also be of the complaints of December 1981; annulled in order to ensure legal in reality, they amount to a rejection certainty. of those complaints as regards the substance; In its rejoinder the defendant rejects that argument on the ground that it is 2. It is in the interests of the incorrect because the notices no longer administration of justice to avoid exist. unnecessary complaints if the decision in question amounts to a decision which is the consequence of a total or 3. Finally, the applicants maintain that partial rejection of the earlier in so far as the action seeks the complaint (see judgment of 30 annulment of the decisions of 14 May November 1978 in Salerno Joined not on the ground that they assign each Cases 4, 9 and 28/78 [1978] ECR of the applicants to a post of reviser/ 2403). principal translator in Grade LA 4, but on the ground that they expressly reject the complaints of December 1981, the In its rejoinder the defendant considers admişsiblity of the action is not, and that the principle laid down in Salerno is moreover cannot be, contested. inapplicable inasmuch as that case con­ cerned an action against a decision of a In its rejoinder the defendant agrees with selection board, and the institution the applicants on that point. Neverthe­ against which the action was directed less, it contends that the procedural was powerless to alter such a decision. In defects in question were rectified by the this instance, the defendant could have adoption of the new decisions of 14 May altered the definition of the duties at any 1982. time, if it had so desired. The aim of Article 90 (2) is precisely to accord the authority in question sufficient time for reflection in order to effect appropriate B. Substance alterations, if it considers that they are just. The applicants challenge the notices inasmuch as they are based on the 2. In its statement of defence the decision of 17 March 1981 defining the defendant contends, in addition, that the duties and powers of officials of the Court should dismiss the claim for the General Secretariat of the Council of the

(ii) The other institutions make the The applicants also point out that under distinction. the terms of Article 5 (4) of the Staff Regulations different duties must attach to "each"basic post. (iii) Revision and translation are two different activities which occupy different positions in the scale of posts, as is shown by the fact that In the defendants view, on the other certain revisers were promoted to hand, Article 5 (4) of the Staff Regu­ reviser in Grade LA 5 on the lations authorizes the institutions to basis of a competition. draw up the definition of the duties attaching to the basic posts in question "by reference" to the table. That permits (iv) A letter from the Director- it to adjust the definition of existing General suggests that there was a duties, or even to introduce a new deliberate and firm intention to definition in respect of a duty which combine the two basic posts in does not entirely correspond to a one. particular basic post. The fact that the duties have not been defined in the same manner in all the institutions shows moreover that it was intended to leave a certain discretion to each of those institutions. Finally, the legislature listed 2. The notices encroached on the in the table the designation " Head of existing rights of the applicants. In Translation or Interpretation Group " on contrast to translators, revisers must a separate line, whereas it placed the have demonstrated that they are duties of reviser, principal translator extremely good linguists. Moreover, and principal interpreter together. The

defendant considers that by doing so the for their implementation are always legislature left each institution the choice liable to amendment. of deciding whether there were three distinct basic posts or whether two or three of the posts referred to constituted a single basic post. The fact that the Finally, the Director-General of Ad defendant may define the powers which ministration merely suggested in the attach to "each" basic post does not, exchange of letters in question that "at moreover, prevent it from defining those this stage, there are no plans to appoint powers in identical terms. LA officials to the post of Head of Group" which would imply that it is always open to the administration, at the appropriate time, to appoint officials in The defendant takes the view that the category LA to the post of Head of duties of reviser and principal translator Group. are intrinsically connected and that consequently it may define their rights and duties in the same way.

functioning of the service, and was revisers could only be required to contrary to Article 45 of the Staff Regu translate particularly difficult texts. lations inasmuch as the appointment of a Moreover, some of the applicants were translator in Grade LA 5 to a post of only promoted to the post on the basis of reviser in the same grade did not a competition, and in any event all of constitute a promotion within the mean them were appointed, after having duly ing of the Staff Regulations.

lators". They are therefore required to discretion as regards its internal organ carry out new duties but their rank is in ization. Nevertheless, they emphasize no way lowered. In any event, the Staff that that discretion is limited by the Regulations and the measures adopted provisions of the Staff Regulations.

As regards the opportunities for applying In the further alternative, the applicants for a post of reviser in another in­ claim that the two basic posts in question stitution, the defendant considers that a have been combined not in order to reviser/principal translator can always improve management of the language rely on the experience acquired in service but, in this instance, in order carrying out both duties at the Council. to satisfy a corporatist interest. In their view, "the interests and the rights of a minority which have been duly and deservedly acquired after many years Finally, the defendant rejects the have been sacrificed to the egalitarian argument that it acted in a corporatist demands of a majority". interest. It maintains that it adopted the measure in question solely because translation was slower than revision and consequently there must be many more In its rejoinder, the defendant raises the translators than revisers. If translators, at question whether it is possible to rely on a certain point in their career, became Article 184 in view of the fact that the revisers and carried out revision defendant's decision of 17 March 1981, exclusively, there would be too many the legality of which is disputed, does revisers and not enough translators. In its not constitute a "general" decision, the opinion, there are only two solutions to criterion to which the Court itself that problem: either the definition of the referred in its judgment of 6 March 1979 duties must be changed or some officials (Case 92/78 Simmenthal [19791 ECR must have progress in their career 777). blocked.

"A table showing basic posts and corresponding career brackets is given in Annex I.

By reference to this table each institution shall, after consulting the Staff Regulations Committee referred to in Article 10, define the duties and powers attaching to each basic post."

3 Annex I to the Staff Regulations, as amended by Council Regulation No 912/78 of 2 May 1978 (Official Journal 1978, L 119, p. 1) shows under the heading "Language Service" that Career Bracket LA 4/LA 5 comprises the basic posts of both " Head of Translation or Interpretation Group " and, on a separate line, "Reviser, principal translator, principal interpreter".

4 Following that amendment of the Staff Regulations of 2 May 1978 the Council adopted on 17 March 1981 in pursuance of Article 5 (4) of the Staff Regulations a decision amending, inter alia, the definition of the duties and powers of the officials of the language service of the Council. That new decision defines the duties of a reviser and those of a principal translator in identical terms.

s As a result of the new definition of duties the administration sent to the applicants notices of adjustment dated 15 September 1981 informing them

ROSANI v COUNCIL

11 The fact that the second subparagraph of Article 5 (4) of the Staff Regu­ lations requires the institutions to define the duties of "each" basic post in no way implies that they must define them differently. That applies in particular

JUDGMENT OF 28. 9. 1983 — JOINED CASES 193-198/82

in respect of duties within the same grade, concerning similar posts which are as closely linked as are the posts of reviser and principal translator and which are listed in the Staff Regulations on a single separate line.

i2 Moreover, it should be noted that Article 5 (4) of the Staff Regulations states that each institution is to define the duties and powers attaching to a basic post, and does not require that that definition be identical in all the institutions.

1 3 Secondly, the applicants claim that the relevant measures require them to carry out tasks which are inferior to their status and therefore encroach on their existing rights.

H "Whilst the duties and powers assigned to an official must on the whole be in keeping with the post which corresponds to the' grade he occupies in the scale of posts, as the Court has repeatedly held, that principle of equivalence between grade and post does not apply in respect of posts within the same grades.

i9 However, under Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure, the institutions shall bear their own costs in proceedings brought by servants of the Communities.

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Third Chamber)

hereby:

1. Dismisses the applications;

2. Orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.