JUDGMENT OF 17.12.1956 — CASE 1/56 BOURGAUX v COMMON ASSEMBLY

In Case 1/56

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: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Procedure

Facts

I — Submissions and arguments of the parties

LAW

A — Jurisdiction and admissibility

B — The purpose of the application

C — The substance of the case

D — Costs

1. The applicant, Mr Bourgaux, entered into a contract of employment dated 10 January 1953 with the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community acting in accordance with the last paragraph of Article 6 of the Treaty and the third paragraph of Article 7 of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions and of Articles 45 and 49 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly.

2. As Mr Bourgaux's contract came to an end on 31 December 1954 the parties agreed to extend it to 31 December 1955 upon the same terms and with reference to the provisions of the provisional Staff Regulations, a copy of which was sent to you when the contract of employment was handed to you as stated in the letter of 2 February 1955 confirming the extension.

3. The Secretary General of the Common Assembly informed the applicant by letter dated 13 December 1955 of Order No 1087 of the same date whereby the President of the Assembly notified him that on the expiration of his contract on 31 December 1955 it would not be renewed.

4. A memorandum of 15 December 1955 signed by the head of the General Administration Department of the Assembly addressed to the Accounts Branch gives particulars of the allowances awarded to the applicant:

5. On 22 December 1955 the Luxembourg Caisse d'Épargne de l'État received from the General Secretariat of the Assembly an order to pay 1048591 Bfrs to the applicant.

6. On the same date the Luxembourg Caisse d'Épargne de l'État transferred the sum of 1048591 Bfrs, through clearance channels to the Banque Generate du Luxembourg and requested it to credit the said sum to the applicant's account.

7. On 12 January 1956 the application was lodged and registered at the Court Registry.

I —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. Mr Bourgaux claims that the Court should:

2. The defendant contends that the Court should dismiss the application.

3. Each party submits that the other party should bear the costs.

4. The defendant during the written procedure did not challenge either the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 42 of the Treaty or the admissibility of the application.

5. An analysis of the applicant's submissions with reference to the decisions which he asserts should be annulled makes it clear that there is a general complaint (A) contained in the submission challenging the decision of the Bureau of the Assembly to reduce the staff of two specific administrative units and its view that two employees cannot be assigned to new posts.

A —. Jurisdiction and admissibility

B —. The purpose of the application

C —. The substance of the case

D —. 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 of Justice and the Rules of the Court on costs, THE COURT hereby: