C-266/82
ECLI:EU:C:1984:3
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61982CJ0266
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
J U D G M E N T O F T H E C O U R T (FIRST CHAMBER) 12 J A N U A R Y 1 9 8 4 '
Mariette Turner, née Krecké, v Commission of the European Communities
(Official — C h a n g e of assignment)
Case 266/82
1. Action for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Adoption of measures of compliance — Reasonable time (ECSC Treaty, Art. 34; EEC Treaty, Art. 176)
2. Officials — Assignment — Statement of reasons — Duty — Scope
1. It is not normally possible to comply able time" to comply with a judgment immediately with a judgment an- annulling a decision taken under the nulling a measure, since it requires EEC Treaty even in the absence of an the adoption of a number of express provision in the Treaty with administrative measures. The second regard thereto. paragraph of Article 34 of the EEC Treaty has taken account of those circumstances by expressly allowing 2. A decision assigning an official to a the High Authority "a reasonable given post satisfies the requirement to time" to take "the necessary steps to state the reasons on which it is based comply with the judgment". The when it mentions the reasons for the reasons behind the second paragraph assignment without its being necessary of Article 34 of the ECSC Treaty to state why the official was not constitute grounds for accepting that assigned to another post or kept in his the Commission also has a "reason- previous post.
In Case 2 6 6 / 8 2
MARIETTE TURNER, NÉE K R E C K É , an official of the Commission of the E u r o p e a n Communities, residing at 213 Avenue Louise,. Brussels, assisted
1 — Language of the Case: French.
JUDGMENT OF 12. 1. 1984 — CASE 266/82
and represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of J. Biver, 2 Rue Goethe, applicant,
v
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, represented by its Principal Legal Adviser, Bernard Paulin, acting as Agent, assisted by Daniel Jacob, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Oreste Montako, a member of its Legal Department, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg, defendant,
APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission Decision of 20 October 1981 compulsorily transferring the applicant to Division IX-A-6, Sickness Insurance and Building Loans, and for an order for the payment to the applicant of BFR 250 000 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the contested decision,
T H E C O U R T (First Chamber)
composed of: T. Koopmans, President of Chamber, A. O'Keeffe and G. Bosco, Judges, *"
Advocate General: S. Rozès Registrar: P. Heim
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Facts and Issues
I — Facts and written procedure Energy Community in 1966 and was at first assigned to the Hygiene and Atomic Dr Turner entered the service of the Medicine Division of the Directorate of Commission of the European Atomic Health Protection.
TURNER v COMMISSION
By a Commission decision of 8 April On 20 May 1980 a fresh Commission 1968 the applicant was appointed a decision transferred Dr Turner to the probationary official with effect from the post of Principal Administrator in Direc- previous 1 February and remained in the torate General XII for Research, Science same post; a Commission decision sub- and Education with effect from 1 June sequently established her with effect 1980. That decision was also challenged from 1 August 1968. by Dr Turner by means of a complaint made on 28 May 1980. Following the appearance of Vacancy Notice No C O M / 9 2 / 7 0 Dr Turner, by a Commission decision of 22 July 1970, Following the express rejection of the was appointed with effect from 1 July two above-mentioned complaints Dr 1970 to a post of Principal Administrator Turner brought an action against the in the medical department attached to decision changing her assignment. the Directorate General for Personnel and Administration. Her duties in the medical department comprised medical By judgment of 9 July 1981 in Joined examinations of newly recruited staff, Cases 59 and 129/80 Turner v medical check-ups, the examination of Commission [1981] ECR 1883 the Court reports on check-ups, vaccinations, the annulled the decision at issue on the sick-bay, medical supervision of the ground that they were vitiated by an crèche and consultations requested by insufficient statement of the reasons on staff. Between 1971 and 1973 she also which they were based and misuse of performed some of the duties of medical powers. officer for the office responsible for settling claims. On 20 October 1981 the Director On 4 May 1979 the Director General for General for Personnel and Adminis- Personnel and Administration asked Dr tration decided to assign Dr Turner Turner to take up new duties as part of together with her post to the Division the reorganization of the medical IX-A-6 Sickness Insurance and Building department in Brussels. She took the Loans where she was to perform the view, however, that the new duties were duties of Medical Officer. insufficiently formulated and alien to her specialized field and she expressed her disagreement with the alteration in her The Commission expressly rejected her duties. complaint and Dr Turner lodged an application at the Court Registry on 27 September 1982 claiming the annulment By a decision of 8 June 1979 of the of the decision of 20 October 1981 Member of the Commission responsible for personnel and administration Dr changing her assignment. Turner was assigned to a specialized unit, the Brussels Medical Branch for Brussels Staff by way of change from her Upon hearing the report of the Judge- previous assignment to the medical Rapporteur and the views of the division. Advocate General the Court (First Chamber) decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory On 3 July 1979 Dr Turner lodged a inquiry. It nevertheless invited the complaint against the decision of 4 May Commission to answer, before the 1979. hearing, a number of questions relating
JUDGMENT OF 12. 1. 1984 — CASE 266/82
to the position of the office responsible Misuse of powers. for settling claims, the details of the procedure followed in assigning the All the submissions are challenged by the applicant thereto and the amount of Commission. work which her duties involved. The Commission answered the questions by Failure to respect a judicial decision letter dated 10 August 1983. Dr Turner maintains that the Com- mission has disregarded both the retro- II — C o n c l u s i o n s of t h e p a r t i e s active effect and the effect in absolute terms of the judgment of the Court of 9 July 1981. The Commission in fact disre- The applicant claims that the Court garded the retroactive nature of the should: annulment of an administrative measure by failing to give the applicant back Declare the application for annulment of the duties which were hers prior to the decision of 20 October 1981 the decision of 4 May 1979 and compulsorily assigning her to Division reestablishing her career. Moreover, it IX-A-6, Sickness Insurance and Building disregarded the absolute effect of res Loans, to be admissible and well judicata which in the present case founded; required the administration to do nothing which was irreconcilable with Award her the sum of BFR 250:000 as · the judgment which * annulled the . compensation for the· non-material - 'contested . decision: The ..decision-' 'of '20 damage which she has suffered; October 1981 to transfer' 'the applicant sets at naught the principles contained in Order the defendant to pay the whole of the judgment of the Court of 9 July 1981 the costs. according to which the administration is required: The defendant contends that the Court should: To define itself the precise scope of the tasks· given to its staff; Dismiss the action as unfounded; To give its officials specific and sub- Order the parties to bear their owncosts. stantial tasks;
In the event of a new assignment of a medically qualified official made against III — Submissions and arguments his will to take account of his special- of t h e p a r t i e s ization and experience.
The submissions made by Dr Turner In fact the Commission administration : against the contested decision are as follows : Instructed the applicant herself to make contact with her new superior and Failure to respect a judicial decision colleague to consider the duties which which must be regarded as a breach of might be entrusted to her in relation to the law; sickness insurance;
Disregard of essential procedural re- Did not, in the memorandum from quirements; the Director General for Personnel and
TURNER v COMMISSION
Administration of 20 October 1981, the position as it was before the measure same date as the decision to transfer annulled was adopted, take a fresh the applicant, or in a subsequent mem- decision. As to the absolute effect, the orandum from the Head of the Sickness principle means on 'the one hand that the Insurance and Building Loans Division judgment must be complied with within a of 16 November 1981, give any satis- reasonable period, which goes against factory description of the applicant's the applicant's criticism that the duties since the description in those Commission did not immediately comply memoranda does not accord with the with the above-mentioned judgment, and actual position and seeks to represent as on the other hand that after complying specific and substantial tasks which in fact are not so; with the judgment as aforesaid, the administration "is quite free as to the action to be taken" and may for example "adopt the same decision but on a Gave the applicant, once again subjected different legal basis". to a new assignment against her will, duties which did not accord with her specialization and did not take account The judgment in question was complied of her experience as a medical prac- with by the very fact that the applicant's titioner. assignment to Directorate General XII was not maintained, and that the decision to reassign her was taken \vithin In the latter respect the applicant an exceptionally short period. In addition emphasizes that her new assignment the administration, far from "adopting "does not have effective duties, in any in the same circumstances the same event none of a medical nature". They measure as had been held to be are in fact administrative duties, the unlawful", made a fresh assignment medical nature of which is purely which was in no way incompatible with the operative part of the judgment of incidental since the doctors of the 9 July 1981 and with the statement of sickness insurance "most frequently do reasons which provide the necessary no more than perform a purely routine basis therefor. act comprising checking that the pre- scription given by the practitioner treating the patient satisfies the terms for its acceptance by the sickness insurance". In that respect the Commission observes that the applicant's new duties were defined in detail in the memoranda from the Director General for Personnel and It is thus obvious that the Commission Administration of 20 October 1981 and clearly disregarded the authority of res the Head of the Sickness Insurance and judicata. Building Loans Division of 16 November 1981 and are moreover listed in Articles 11 and 20 of the Joint Rules on Sickness The Coitimission rejects all the ap- Insurance. For that reason the claim to plicant's allegations. It denies that it has the effect that the description of the disregarded the retroactive effect of the duties at issue "does not accord with the Court's judgment and takes the view that facts or exaggerates their scope" appears although an annulment by the Court quite irrelevant. implies that the measure annulled is deemed never to have existed it does not follow that the administration may not, In the same way it is impossible to see in on the basis of the applicant's legal what respect the duties at present
JUDGMENT OF 12. 1. 1984 — CASE 266/82
entrusted to the applicant do not Infringement of essential procedural correspond with her "specialization" and requirements by reason of an insufficient experience "as a medical practitioner in statement of the reasons on which the the medical department". In the first decision was based place it must be observed that the applicant was not recruited as a member The contested decision, assigning the of the Commission's staff or transferred applicant to Division IX-A-6, states as to the medical department because of the reasons on which it is based, the any specialization and that during the importance of checking all the medical course of the years she has performed documents in the Sickness Insurance and various types of work in the medical Building Loans Division.
It refers department. As regards the nature of the moreover to Article 7 (1) of the Staff duties properly so called, it is sufficiently Regulations which gives the appointing clear from the description which has authority the power to assign officials by been given several times that they are of transfer "solely in the interests of the an obviously medical nature and in any service". cases involve the examination of patients. In Dr Turner's view the Commission failed to state why it considered it impossible to keep the applicant in the medical department and moreover it The contested decision took full account exaggerated the importance of the of the judgment of 9 July 1981 which medical examinations in Division IX- annulled the decision of 4 May 1979 to A-6. The decision to transfer her was
transfer the applicant on the ground that therefore not in the interests of the "although the applicant was originally service. recruited to carry out work predomi- nantly scientific in nature, the fact is that for most of her career she has been (a) The failure to retain the applicant in assigned to duties which were appro- the medical department priate to her own specialized field, a good part of which involved work Dr Turner observes first of all that the related to the practice of medicine" and decision of 20 October 1981 states no that "the Commission was not entitled, reason for not keeping the applicant in for reasons of pure administrative con- the medical department.
That failure to venience, to assign the applicant to duties state a reason is all the more important which were manifestly inappropriate to inasmuch as, according to the principle her training and previous service record. of the re-establishment of an official's In fact, in contrast to the decision to career, the administration was obliged, transfer the applicant which was the according to the judgment of the Court subject of the aforementioned judgment of 9 July 1981, to give the applicant back and which assigned the applicant to her duties in the medical department duties appertaining to "the field of unless there were some overriding psychology and social service" which reasons to the contrary and to recognize might have been performed equally well in good faith the need to keep her there by persons without any real medical by reason of her previous honourable training, the decision at present at issue service. assigned Dr Turner to a post which could be entrusted only to a medical The Commission's statement in an practitioner and "a good part of which Explanatory Note of 11 December 1981 involved work related to the practice of to the effect that "the operation of the medicine". medical department for the staff in
TURNER v COMMISSION
Brussels does not at present require the qualifications of a cardiologist and assignment of an additional doctor" is specialist in internal medicine such as the belied by the facts. During the veiy applicant. From the quantitative point of period when the decision at issue was view, the work, until the decision at taken the medical department in Brussels issue, has been done without any experienced a considerable additional problems by a single part-time prac- resurgence of work which made it titioner. Although the applicant has been necessary to engage two doctors, the one assigned wholly to sickness insurance she as a full-time official and the other as has only a fraction of the files (the a part-time visiting practitioner. The remainder having been left to the part- urgent need for additional full-time time practitioner, Dr Laurent) and is doctors is moreover apparent from a therefore far from being overworked. draft report from Dr Hoffmann in December 1982 relating to the year 1981. From May 1974 until October 1981 the examinations were always effected by a single doctor (first Dr Siddons, who at The Commission answers that a decision the same time was responsible for duties assigning an official to a given post does connected with checking absences, and not have to state the reasons for which then Dr Laurent). Moreover the veiy the official is not assigned to another large number of persons covered by the post. sickness insurance scheme in no way means that there are as many medical files requiring any steps on the part of It adds that the medical department as at the medical officer. Finally, Articles 20 present constituted is in a position to and 22 of the Joint Rules on Sickness perform all its duties and that the report Insurance mention only "a" (one only) mentioned by the applicant, whilst refer- medical officer for each office ring to the need to assign an additional responsible for settling claims so that it is doctor to the medical department for the unlawful to appoint another especially staff in Brussels, recommends only the when the work-load docs not justify it. engagement of a doctor under the conditions of service of temporary staff. The Commission answers that the quali- tative and the quantitative importance of (b) The importance of medical exam- the tasks entrusted to the medical officer inations in Division IX-A-6 of the Brussels office for settling claims cannot be contested.
Dr Turner challenges the importance of such examinations from both the On the basis of the descriptions in the • qualitative and the quantitative points of aforesaid memoranda of 20 October and view. 16 November 1981 it lists those tasks as follows:
From the point of view of quality it is basically an administrative medical Consideration of applications for auth- matter which ought to be voluntarily orization in relation to convalescent undertaken and not imposed on a doctor treatment, thermal cures, cures for and does not require any special skill; in delicate children, psychotherapy and so any event it in no way demands the forth;
JUDGMENT OF 12. 1. 1984 — CASE 266/82
Detailed consideration of cases of serious The interests of the service require on illness giving rise to 100% reim- the contrary the applicant's assignment bursement of medical expenses; to tasks corresponding to her specialized field and in any event that they should be tasks of real substance not confined to purely administrative measures and Consideration of files in relation to clearly and precisely shared with the surgical operations if there is a doubt as other doctor concerned with the work. to their classification; On the latter issue it is to be observed that the administration did nothing in practice to give specific effect to the Checking any application for reim- statement in its letter of 11 December bursement if any anomaly is found; 1981 'to the effect that "Dr Turner is the medical officer; Dr Laurent will assist her as a visiting practitioner" but Joining in the work of the medical deliberately left ambiguities in the officer. respective duties of the parties.
From the quantitative point of view the The Commission answers that the work has continually increased and the applicant's present duties involve "to a number of those covered by the Sickness considerable extent work relating to the Insurance Scheme covered by the practice of medicine". The new Brussels office for settling claims rose assignment thus complies with the from 27 000 in 1977 to 34 000 in 1982. judgment of the Court of 9 July 1981 and in addition meets the needs of the service, regard being had to the scope As to the argument referring to Articles and level of the medical duties in the 20 and 22 of the Joint Rules the office for settling claims. Further, Commission contends that it is quite contrary to Dr Turner's view, her without foundation. It is obvious that the position within the sickness insurance applicant alone has been appointed as office háš been clearly defined and is not medical officer but there is nothing to open to any "ambiguity". prevent her from being assisted by another doctor.
In the Commission's view the applicant has thus in no way succeeded in showing (c) Interests of the service that there was any mistake of law or fact . i n the statement of reasons on which the contested decision was based. Dr Turner refers to the case-law of the Court to the effect that different criteria apply to the mobility of officials according to whether the new post has Misuse of powers been voluntarily chosen or imposed and observes that the interests of the service cannot be pleaded to assign a doctor, as in the present case, against her will to Dr Turner claims that her assignment to duties patently inappropriate to her Division IX-A-6 was not effected as a training and previous service record. result of any objective consideration or
TURNER v COMMISSION
in the interests of the service but with the has already stated in dealing with the sole aim of avoiding at any price her previous submissions, without any return to the medical department, which objective foundation and are moreover was achieved by assigning her to duties wrong in fact. The submission is· incompatible with her specialized field therefore without any foundation. and already performed by another doctor who had not complained of being overworked. Claim for damages
In this case the misuse of powers is strikingly apparent from a series of Dr Turner observes that in this case objective facts all leading to the same because of the precedent constituted by conclusion, namely: the judgment of annulment given on 9 July 1981 and improperly complied with intentionally by the Commission, it is not possible to accept that recognition that The absence of any real attempt by the her action for annulment of the Commission to reinstate the applicant in contested decision is well founded will in the medical department in accordance itself constitute sufficient compensation with the judgment of the Court of 9 July for the damage suffered by the applicant. 1981; There are therefore grounds for awarding her a sum to compensate her in fairness for the slur on her professional reputation and for the prolonged depri- The excessive importance intentionally attributed by the Commission to the vation of medical work in accordance sickness insurance office in an endeavour with her specialized field and experience to give the impression that the applicant's as a result of the contested decision. assignment thereto was objectively necessary; The Commission maintains that the contested decision was taken with due regard to the provisions and principles of The applicant's assignment against her Community law and that therefore the will to a post for which her specialized claim for damages is without any foun- training and experience were irrelevant; dation.
The absence of any justification for the decision not to keep the applicant, who had been mandatorily re-assigned to IV — O r a l p r o c e d u r e it, in the medical department, whilst another full-time doctor and a further visiting practitioner were appointed thereto. The parties presented oral observations at the sitting on 6 October 1983.
The Commission confines itself to answering that the considerations on The Advocate General delivered her which Dr Turner bases her complaint of opinion at the sitting on 24 November misuse of powers are, as the Commission 1983.
JUDGMENT OF 12. 1. 1984 — CASE 266/82
Decision
1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 27 September 1982 Dr Mariette Turner, née Krecké, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, brought an action for the annulment of the Commission Decision of 20 October 1981 compulsorily assigning her to Division IX-A-6, Sickness Insurance and Building Loans, and for the payment of the sum of BFR 250 000 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the contested decision.
2 In support of her action Dr Turner puts forward three submissions, namely disregard of a judicial decision, to be equated with a breach of the law, infringement of essential procedural requirements and misuse of powers.
3 As regards the first submission Dr Turner considers that the contested decision disregarded the judgment of 9 July 1981 (Joined Cases 59 and 129/80 Turners Commission [1981] ECR 1883) in which the Court annulled the decision of the Director General for Personnel and Administration of the Commission of 4 May 1979, assigning the applicant to a different post as part of the reorganization of the medical branch, and the decision of the Commission of 20 May 1980 compulsorily transferring the applicant to a post in Directorate General XII (Research, Science and Education). Following the annulment of those decisions the applicant was to be regarded from the legal point of view as having been reassigned to the duties which she performed prior to 4 May 1979, that is to say the duties of preventive medicine performed as part of the medical department.
4 Dr Turner complains first of all that from 9 July to 20 October 1981 the Commission took no step to comply with the judgment of the Court by re-assigning the applicant to her previous duties and maintains that that constitutes patent disregard of the retroactive effect of the judgment.
s In that respect it must be observed that it is not normally possible to comply immediately with a judgment annulling a measure, since it requires the
TURNER v COMMISSION
adoption of a number of administrative measures. The second paragraph of Article 34 of the ECSC Treaty has taken account of those circumstances by expressly allowing the High Authority "a reasonable time" to take "the necessary steps to comply with the judgment". The reasons behind the second paragraph of Article 34 of the ECSC Treaty constitute grounds for accepting that the Commission also has a "reasonable time" to comply with a judgment annulling a decision taken under the EEC Treaty even in the absence of an express provision in the Treaty with regard thereto.
6 In this case, in view of the nature of the measures to be taken and other relevant circumstances such as the summer holidays, the annual leave taken by the applicant from 1 to 20 September 1981 and her absences by reason of sickness during July and August 1981, the period of a little more than three months which elapsed between the delivery of the judgment and the decision making a fresh assignment cannot be regarded as excessive.
7 The applicant further challenges the decision of 20 October 1981 assigning her to Division IX-A-6, Sickness Insurance and Building Loans, on the ground that it is a measure incompatible with compliance with the aforesaid judgment of 9 July 1981 according to which "under the first paragraph of Article 176 of the EEC Treaty it will be the duty of the administration to reconsider the applicant's situation in the light of the principles underlying this judgment and to adopt new measures in regard to her future posting".
s As appears from the judgment in question the new provisions to be adopted by the administration were to take account of the applicant's training and her previous employment, the distinguishing feature of which was that the applicant had, for most of-her career, been assigned to duties which were appropriate to her own specialized field, a good part of which involved work related to the practice of medicine. It is therefore necessary to check how far the assignment made by the decision of 20 October 1981 observed those criteria.
9 The contested decision assigned Dr Turner as a medical officer to the office responsible for settling claims in respect of sickness insurance. Because of the
JUDGMENT OF 12. 1. 1984 — CASE 266/82
very nature of the duties involved, that post is not open to persons with no real medical training or at any rate only an incomplete training in the field of medicine. In entrusting those tasks to the applicant the Commission thus took into consideration both her specialized field, that is to say her medical training, and her previous service. In view of the nature of the duties entrusted to medical officials of the institutions it is necessary further to emphasize that no complaint can be made of the Commission for neglecting the applicant's specialized training in one of the branches of medicine.
io In view of the foregoing considerations the first submission in the application must be rejected.
n In her second submission which relates to the infringement of essential pro- cedural requirements Dr Turner alleges that the statement of the reasons on which the contested decision is based is insufficient or wrong in so far as no reason is given for the failure to keep the applicant in the medical branch, that the importance of the medical checks in Division IX-A-6 is exaggerated and that finally the decision justifies the applicant's new assignment by reference to the interests of the service.
i2 As the Commission rightly observes, a decision assigning an official to a given post satisfies the requirement to state the reasons on which it is based when it mentions the reasons for the assignment without its being necessary to state why the official was not assigned to another post or kept in his previous post. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the arguments put forward by the applicant in that respect.
1 3 As regards the argument relating to the reference to the interests of the service it must be remembered that the existence of the interests of the service depends solely on the question whether there were objective reasons justifying a medical official's assignment to Division IX-A-6.
H It is therefore necessary only to check whether the statement of the reasons on which the contested decision was based was correct in so far as it refers to the need to assign the applicant to Division IX-A-6 because of the increase in the medical duties involved in the work of the office responsible for settling claims.
TURNER v COMMISSION
is The parties agree that the number of beneficiaries under the Commission's sickness insurance scheme rose from 27 000 in 1978 to 34 000 in 1982 and that the trend involved a proportional increase in the files submitted to the sickness insurance office. Dr Turner however denies that that increase involved a work-load exceeding the capacity of the visiting doctor working half-time, who was responsible for carrying out the duties of medical officer, and thus made necessary the applicant's assignment to the office responsible for settling claims.
i6 It is common ground that the increase in the number of beneficiaries made the work-load of the medical officer increasingly heavy. Although it is true that until 1978 the duties of medical officer could be performed by a doctor who was also responsible for checking absences, from then on it was necessary to entrust that work to a visiting doctor, working half-time, who was however faced with a continually increasing work-load which, according to the Commission, required him to devote far more than half his time to the work and also involved delays in dealing with files.
iz In view of those circumstances and the fact that the visiting doctor was due to retire at the beginning of 1983 the Commission was justified in considering that the nature and amount of work in Division IX-A-6 required the assignment thereto of a full-time medical official. The fact that after the departure of the visiting doctor who worked there between 1978 and 1983 a new visiting doctor was engaged in addition to the applicant, even if there was no objective necessity for the appointment, cannot alter the assessment of the situation as it appeared on 20 October 1981 when the contested decision to assign the applicant was taken.
is The second submission must therefore also be rejected.
i9 From the aforegoing considerations it is apparent that the third submission of misuse of powers is also unfounded since the contested decision was based on objective considerations.
JUDGMENT OF 12. 1. 1984 — CASE 266/82
Costs
20 U n d e r Article 69 (2) of the Rules of P r o c e d u r e the unsuccessful p a r t y is to be ordered to pay the costs. H o w e v e r , u n d e r Article 70 of the Rules of P r o c e d u r e the institutions are to bear their o w n costs in proceedings b r o u g h t by servants of the Communities.
O n those g r o u n d s ,
T H E C O U R T (First C h a m b e r )
hereby:
1. Dismisses the application;
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Koopmans O'Keeffe Bosco
Delivered in open court in L u x e m b o u r g on 12 J a n u a r y 1984.
P. Heim T. Koopmans Registrar President of the First Chamber
OPINION OF MRS ADVOCATE GENERAL ROZÈS DELIVERED ON 24 NOVEMBER 1983 1
Mr President, made by Mariette Turner, née Krecké, Members of the Court, for the annulment of a decision of the Commission of the European The case before the Court is an Communities dated 20 October 1981 and application dated 27 September 1982 the award of a sum of BFR 250 000 as
1 — Translaced from the French.