JUDGMENT OF 12.12.1956 — CASE 10/55 MIROSSEVICH V HIGH AUTHORITY
In Case 10/55
THE COURT composed of: M. Pilotti, President, J. Rueff and O. Riese (Presidents of Chambers), P. J. S. Serrarens, L. Delvaux, Ch. L. Hammes and A. van Kleffens, Judges, Advocate General: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Facts
1. Procedure
2. Facts
3. Admissibility of the application
4. Submissions and arguments of the parties
I. Appointment of the applicant
II. The period spent by the applicant in the language department
III. Misuse of powers
IV. Promises alleged to have been made to the applicant
V. Contract signed by the applicant on 12 October 1953
VI. The decision of the Administrative Committee
Law
1. Jurisdiction
2. Admissibility
3. Substance
A. The conditions upon which the applicant entered the services of the High Authority
B. The decision of 8 January 1953
(a) The claim relating to the irregularity of the probationary period
(b) Misuse of powers
4. Compensation claimed by the applicant
C. Costs
1. Procedure
2. Facts
3. Admissibility of the application
4. Submissions and arguments of the parties
I. Appointment of the applicant
A. The applicant alleges that as a result of the tests taken at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Rome the Minister acting on behalf of the Community on implied instructions (implicit in the refund of the travel expenses incurred only at the request of the said Minister) notified the applicant by telegram dated 4 December 1952 of her posting to the European Coal and Steel Community as an interpreter/translator.
B. The defendant for its part states that the applicant was never engaged as a translator with the High Authority. She was accepted for a trial period on the basis of a purely oral agreement.
II. The period spent by the applicant in the language department
A. The applicant claims that she was not required to serve the prescribed period of probation. The month spent in the language department cannot be regarded as a probationary period because the applicant was given no opportunity to prove herself. During the first fortnight she had only three translations all of which were of little importance.
B. The defendant observes that the result of the trial period was completely negative. The applicant was considered unsuitable for doing the work of a translator. The defendant observes that in all public administrations officials are as a rule subject to a tria l period and that their establishment depends upon the result of the said period. An official considered unsuitable may be dismissed without any compensation in spite of the favourable results which he may have obtained at a competition.
III. Misuse of powers
A. The applicant states that although she knew four languages she was replaced by a friend of the reviser who was not even a qualified translator and who had only an indifferent knowledge of French and no English; shortly afterwards moreover he was transferred to another department.
B. The defendant denies that the applicant was replaced by a new translator and observes that it was not necessary to dismiss the first in order to engage the second. The engagement of the latter cannot constitute proof in support of a claim of misuse of powers.
IV. Promises alleged to have been made to the applicant
A. The applicant alleges that when she left the language department she had been assured that she would be maintained in a grade equal to that of translators. However, these various promises were never kept. She has moreover never ceased to claim her rights.
B. The defendant stresses that the applicant is wrong in maintaining that she received a promise that she would be given a grade and salary equal to those given to translators. Her statements are moreover contradicted by the documents in her personal file.
V. Contract signed by the applicant on 12 October 1953
A. The applicant alleges that this is a pseudo-contract with retroactive effect for ten months; this contract was a legal fiction and was signed expressly on a provisional basis in the expectation that the applicant would be put back into the category of assistant. She did not really give her consent. The act was vitiated for fraud. On 16 May 1955 she was invited to sign a new incomplete contract (a contract for 24 months, made seven months before its expiry) which she refused.
B. The defendant considers that the applicant accepted without reservation the contract of engagement contained in the letter for the period of 9 December 1952 to 8 December 1953. She thus expressly accepted in writing the duties which were offered to her after she left the language department.
VI. The decision of the Administrative Committee
A. The applicant maintains that the assumptions on which this decision was based are false; the unsatisfactory probationary period referred to did not take place; the engagement for a probationary period which is assumed was in fact a definitive engagement and the contract referred to in the decision did not in fact amount to a contract.
B. The defendant considers that the assumptions at the basis of the decision of the Administrative Committee do not bind the High Authority which is the sole judge in the matter.
1. Jurisdiction
2. Admissibility
3. Substance
A. The conditions upon which the applicant entered the services of the High Authority
B. The decision of 8 January 1953
(a). The claim relating to the irregularity of the probationary period
(b). Misuse of powers
4. Compensation claimed by the applicant
C. Costs
The defendant must bear its own costs. Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate General; Having regard to Article 42 of the Treaty; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court and the rules of the Court on costs; Having regard to the provisional Staff Regulations of the High Authority and the Staff Regulations of the Community, THE COURT hereby: