JUDGMENT OF 12. 7. 1957 — JOINED CASES 7/56 AND 3 TO 7/57 ALGERA v COMMON ASSEMBLY
In Joined Cases 7/56 and 3 to 7/57
THE COURT composed of: CH. L. Hammes, President of Chamber, acting as President, P. J. S. Serrarens, President of Chamber, O. Riese, J. Rueff and A. Van Kleffens, Judges, Advocate-General: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Facts
1. Conclusions of the parties
A — Application for annulment
B — Applications for damages
2. Recital of the facts
3. Submissions made by the parties in the application for annulment
(I) Admissibility of the application
(II) The substance of the case
4. Submission made by the parties in the applications for damages
(I) Arguments put forward by the applicants in their application
(II) Arguments put forward by the Common Assembly in its statement of defence
(III) Arguments put forward by the applicants in their reply
(IV) Arguments put forward by the Common Assembly in its rejoinder
5. Procedure
Law
A — Application for annulment 7/56
I — Admissibility
II — The jurisdiction of the Court
Ill — The revocability of administrative measures giving rise to individual rights
IV — The legality of the orders of 12 December 1955
V — The consequences of the unlawful nature of the part of the orders of 12 December 1955 containing the classification of the applicants
1. Complete nullity or revocability?
2. Does the revocability of the orders of 12 December 1955 extend to the whole of their contents or only to the unlawful part?
VI
VII
VIII — Costs
B — Applications for damages 3 to 7/57
I — Admissibility
II — Substance
1. The legal bases of liability
2. Is the Common Assembly guilty of a wrongful act or omission within the meaning of Article 40 of the Treaty?
3. The damage resulting from the wrongful acts or omissions
A. Material damage
B. Non-material damage
III — Costs
1. Conclusions of the parties
A —. Application for annulment
B —. Applications for damages
2. Recital of the facts
1. In autumn 1955, the Common Assembly endeavoured to reshape its Secretariat in order to remedy certain organizational shortcomings. As the work of the Committee of Presidents engaged on completing the Staff Regulations of the Community was nearing its conclusion, and since on the other hand the contracts of the servants of the Common Assembly were all due to expire on 31 December 1955, the defendant decided to link the measures of reorganization of the services to the application to its servants of the Staff Regulations.
2. At its meeting on 25 November 1955, the Bureau of the Common Assembly adopted the following resolutions:
3. At its meeting of 12 December 1955, the Committee of Presidents noted that the Staff Regulations which it had drawn up were definitively adopted for all the institutions, with the exception of the Council of Ministers, which exception was due to the fact that the President of the said Council had stated that he had to consult his colleagues before giving his definitive agreement.
4. After that meeting, late in the evening of 12 December 1955, the President of the Common Assembly, Mr Pella, sent orders to the servants of the Assembly, which, apart from differences due in each case to the post which the person concerned was to fill, were identifical to the order sent to the first applicant, which was worded as follows:
5. At its meeting on 28 January 1956, the Committee of Presidents definitively adopted the Staff Regulations and decided as follows in regard to the annexes to the Staff Regulations:
6. That report was drawn up by the heads of those administrations. The Committee of Presidents discussed it at its meeting on 5 March 1956, and took note of the unanimous intention of the heads of the four institutions to achieve harmonization of the grades and remunerations of the staff in all the institutions of the Community.
7. At its meeting in private on 15 March 1956, the Bureau of the Common Assembly decided
8. The Delvaux Committee, on which the Common Assembly was represented by its Vice-President, Mr Vanrullen, finished a first report at the beginning of May 1956. That report contained a certain number of concrete proposals for the uniform classification of a large number of posts within the Community in relation to which agreement had not been possible before the creation of this Committee. The report further noted, with regard to the defendant, that
9. On 13 June 1956, the Delvaux Committee submitted a supplementary report, item IIA of which gives its assessment of the situation created within the Common Assembly by the orders of 12 December 1955. The report states, inter alia, that:
10. The Committee of Presidents placed the examination of this report on the agenda of its meeting on 15 June 1956; the minutes of that meeting contain the following remark:
11. On 19 June 1956, the Bureau of the Common Assembly held a meeting the minutes of which contain inter alia the following statement:
12. On 22 June 1956 there was a further meeting of the Bureau of the Common Assembly; the minutes contain inter alia the following statements:
13. On 27 June 1956, Mr Vanrullen sent letters to all the servants of the Assembly in identical terms; the text of the letter which was sent to the first applicant was as follows:
14. The following new classifications were laid down for the applicants:
15. Then, on 12 July 1956, Mr Vanrullen sent further identical letters to those concerned; the text of the letter which was sent to the first applicant was as follows:
16. At its meeting on 30 September and 1 October 1956, the Bureau of the Common Assembly adopted the decisions:
17. On 30 November 1956, the new Bureau of the Common Assembly decided, whilst persisting in the contested decision, to suspend application of them with regard to the applicants until the Court had given judgment; consequently, the applicants are at present still receiving the remuneration to which they were entitled under the orders of 12 December 1955.
3. Submissions made by the parties in the application for annulment
(I). Admissibility of the application
(II). The substance of the case
4. Submission made by the parties in the applications for damages
(I). Arguments put forward by the applicants in their application
A. The applications are lodged only in the alternative, since they concern damage which would result from the dismissal of the application for annulment.
B. Quite apart from the problem of the distribution of powers between the Committee of Presidents and the Common Assembly, it is none the less true that the change of attitude on the part of the Assembly in relation to the applicants caused them particularly serious damage. They find themselves deprived of their status under the Staff Regulations, of their grade and their step, as well as of their career prospects.
C. The applicants have also suffered non-material damage. At first, the Common Assembly had seemed prepared to agree upon an amicable solution; however, in July 1956, it altered its attitude and abruptly confronted the applicants with a choice between alternatives, none of which offered them satisfaction as regards their legitimate career interests. That attitude caused the applicants discomfort and inconvenience and a state of extreme instability; this serious disturbance, which will have repercussions on their future, has caused the applicants suffering in both their private and working lives.
(II). Arguments put forward by the Common Assembly in its statement of defence
A. The applications are inadmissible.
B. The applications are also unfounded, since there is no material damage, or if there is any, the applicants caused it themselves. The applicants were expressly submitted to meet the eventualities of the Court's finding that the measures adopted by the Common Assembly were legitimate, and therefore that returning the applicants to the situation of officials on contract was also legitimate, and of the Court's dismissing the application for annulment. In that case, the applicants were in error as to the legal situation when they rejected the proposals, and they should bear the consequences of their mistake.
C. The claim for compensation in respect of non-material damage is also unfounded. No such damage exists, or if it does exist, it is the applicants' fault. If the applicants had accepted Mr Vanrullen's proposals, they would have maintained the same moral status. Furthermore, they have to perform the same duties as before.
(III). Arguments put forward by the applicants in their reply
A. The plea of inadmissibility is not relevant. It is quite possible for the fate of an application presented independently to depend on the result of other proceedings. Such a course of action on the part of the applicants is not contrary to any provision.
B. Even if the Common Assembly had been entitled to accede to the request for harmonization made by the Committee of Presidents, which right is contested, it in no way follows therefrom that the applicants cannot seek compensation for the damage resulting for them from the fact that the Administration failed to honour the irrevocable undertakings entered into towards them. The invalidity, if proved, of a decision, which moreover was formulated in secret, cannot be relied upon against the applicants, who were entitled to consider that decision as being regular.
C. The statements of the Common Assembly on the question of the damage caused to the applicants are based upon a failure to recognize the irrevocable nature of the rights conferred on the applicants by the orders of 12 December 1955 and to recognize the fact that the applicants have never waived those rights.
(IV). Arguments put forward by the Common Assembly in its rejoinder
5. Procedure
A —. Application for annulment 7/56
I —. Admissibility
II —. The jurisdiction of the Court
Ill —. The revocability of administrative measures giving rise to individual rights
IV —. The legality of the orders of 12 December 1955
1. In relation to the rules laying down the powers within the Common Assembly, the orders of 12 December 1955 were adopted validly: they were signed by the President of the Common Assembly and by his Secretary General. The President acted in accordance with the decisions of the Bureau of the Common Assembly of 25 November 1955. Therefore the orders were adopted validly pursuant to the provisions laid down in the Rules of Procedure of the Common Assembly (JO No 13 of 9.6.1954, p. 402)— in particular in Article 43 (3) thereof — and in the Rules of Internal Administration of the Common Assembly of 25 November 1955—in particular in Articles 1, 2 and 14 thereof.
2. As regards the orders of 12 December 1955, this dispute raises the question, in relation to the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, whether the defendant could validly bring the applicants within the ambit of the Staff Regulations and determine their classification without the consent or the opinion of the Committee of Presidents provided for in Article 78 of the Treaty, or whether it could do so only with the said consent or the said opinion. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to rule on the extent of the other powers which the said Committee holds under the Treaty, nor on its authority to draw up the Staff Regulations pursuant to the last paragraph of Article 7 of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions.
V —. The consequences of the unlawful nature of the part of the orders of 12 December 1955 containing the classification of the applicants
1. Complete nullity or revocability?
2. Does the revocability of the orders of 12 December 1955 extend to the whole of their contents or only to the unlawful part?
VIII —. Costs
B —. Applications for damages 3 to 7/57
I —. Admissibility
II —. Substance
1. The legal bases of liability
2. Is the Common Assembly guilty of a wrongful act or omission within the meaning of Article 40 of the Treaty?
3. The damage resulting from the wrongful acts or omissions
A. Material damage
(a). The unlawful revocation of the application to them of the Staff Regulations and the unlawful reimposition of their temporary contracts, which are annulled by this judgment, did not cause the applicants any pecuniary damage.
(b). The revocation of their classification deprives them of the right to the higher salaries which are provided for in the revoked orders. However, that fact is not the consequence of wrongful acts or omissions, since the revocation of the classification is lawful; consequently, the said deprivation does not confer any entitlement to compensation.
(c). In the written procedure, the applicants claimed that they had refused external offers of employment, because they placed reliance upon the promises of the Common Assembly. However, no evidence was produced or even offered in that connexion. Therefore no finding can be made that there was any damage from that point of view.
B. Non-material damage
(a). Placed in a situation to which they were suited by their professional merits and which offered them every appearance of stability and permanence, the applicants found themselves without any fault on their part confronted with the prospect of a dismissal which meant the end of a career which they could legitimately rely on. The shock caused by this action, the disturbance and uneasiness which resulted from it for those concerned, therefore caused the applicants non-material damage, for which they can claim compensation.
(b). On the other hand, the Court finds that a reduction in grade does not constitute appreciable non-material damage and cannot prejudice the applicants' social standing.
(c). As to the amount which should be granted in compensation for the non-material damage, it must not be forgotten that the Common Assembly's gesture in granting them the material benefit of the orders of 12 December 1955 until the Court has given its decision was only the result of the court action and could not eliminate apprehension as to the future.
III —. Costs
Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate General; Having regard to Articles 6, 31, 40 and 78 of the Treaty, and to Article 7 of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Common Assembly and to its Rules of Internal Administration of 25 November 1955; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of the Community; 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: Declares the present applications admissible and,
I — On application for annulment 7/56
(1) Annuls the decisions contained in the letter sent to the applicants on 12 July 1956 by Mr Vanrullen, the Vice-President of the Common Assembly.
(2) Annuls the decision of the Bureau of the Common Assembly, in so far as it withdraws from the applicants the application of the Staff Regulations.
(3) Dismisses the application for the annulment of the decision of the Bureau of the Common Assembly in so far as that decision withdraws from the applicants the grades and ranks which had been granted to them by the orders of 12 December 1955.
(4) Remits the matter to the Common Assembly, in so far as the decisions of the Vice-President, Mr Vanrullen, and of the Bureau of the Common Assembly have been annulled.
(5) Orders that the applicants are entitled to the reimbursement of four-fifths of their costs by the defendant, and orders the defendant to bear its own costs.
II — On applications for damages 3 to 7/57