JUDGMENT OF 19. 7. 1955 — CASE 1/55 KERGALL v COMMON ASSEMBLY

In Case 1/55

THE COURT composed of: M. Pilotti, President, L. Delvaux and A. van Kleffens (Presidents of Chambers), P. J. S. Serrarens and O. Riese, Judges, Advocate General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts

1. On the regularity of the decision not to renew

2. On the grant for which Article 15 of the contract makes provision

3. On the so-called car allowance

Law

1. Jurisdiction

2. Substance

A — On the regularity of the decisions of the defendant not to renew the applicant's contract of employment

B — On the payments claimed by the applicant

1. The so-called car allowance

2. The payments in respect of damages claimed by the applicant

3. The grant provided for by Article 15 of the applicant's contract of employment

C — Costs

1. On 14 January 1955 Antoine Kergall, a former servant of the Common Assembly, lodged an application at the Registry of the Court claiming that the Court should:

2. From the documents submitted by the parties, it appears that the facts are as follows:

3. The arguments which the parties put forward in support of their claims during the procedure before the Court may be summarized as follows:

1. On the regularity of the decision not to renew

2. On the grant for which Article 15 of the contract makes provision

3. On the so-called car allowance

1. Jurisdiction

2. Substance

A —. On the regularity of the decisions of the defendant not to renew the applicant's contract of employment

(a). The Court is of the opinion that although the contract of employment entered into on 10 January 1953 between the Common Assembly and the applicant is on the face of it merely a contract of employment for a limited period, it nevertheless constitutes a contract sui generis.

(b). As regards the power of the Bureau of the Common Assembly to abolish the post of Head of Administrative Services, the Court rejects the applicant's argument. It finds that the Bureau has the power to organize its Secretariat as it wishes and in the interests of the service, and that it acted in the full exercise of its powers in abolishing a post which it considered unnecessary.

(c). However, the Court finds that the aboliton of a given post cannot, on that count alone, result in the dismissal of the servant who occupied that post, particularly where, as in the present case, the contract of employment does not expressly appoint the servant to the post abolished. Rather, it renders that servant free to occupy another post.

(d). On the basis of the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the Bureau of the Common Assembly, having decided in the circumstances established by the procedure before the Court not to extend the applicant's contract of employment, has put forward in support of its decision a reason which cannot, of itself, justify that decision, and that the Bureau has not taken sufficient account of the legal position of the applicant.

B —. On the payments claimed by the applicant

1. The so-called car allowance

2. The payments in respect of damages claimed by the applicant

3. The grant provided for by Article 15 of the applicant's contract of employment

(a). The material difficulties which the person concerned would have to face as the head of a large family after leaving the service of the Common Assembly;

(b). The expenses that he would have to meet in looking for a new post.

C —. Costs

Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate General; Having regard to Articles 40 and 42 of the Treaty and to Article 7 of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court and to the Rules of the Court on costs, THE COURT hereby: