OPINION OF MR ROEMER — CASE 78/63 HUBER v COMMISSION

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

The present case, like others, concerns the long efforts made by the Commission of the EEC after the entry into force of the Staff Regulations to decide which of its servants could be integrated.

In the case of Mr Rémy Huber who has been in the service of the Commission since 1 October 1958, under a Brussels contract, this integration procedure gave a negative result. The Establishment Board of the Commission isued an unfavourable opinion on him on 18 July 1962. His contract was consequently terminated by the Director-General of Administration by letter of 18 June 1963, in accordance with a decision of the Committee of Chairmen, which was competent in its capacity as the appointing authority.

As a result, this application was made, in the conclusions of which it was claimed that the Court should:

Legal consideration

2. The merits of heads 1 to 3 of the conclusions

I —. The examination of this case will be devoted in the first place to heads 1 to 3 of the conclusions as a whole because they are all directed to restoring the applicant to the position he had prior to the commencement of the integration procedure. I shall then deal with head 4: the claim for damages,

1. As regards admissibility, which the Commission disputes in part (heads 1 and 3 of the conclusions), I can be relatively brief.

2. The merits of heads 1 to 3 of the conclusions

To establish the heads 1 to 3 of his conclusions, the applicant has submitted a series of arguments which I shall now consider.

It is proposed to examine first of all the purely legal arguments which are already partly familiar from other proceedings.

II —. Finally, it remains for me to deal with the head of the conclusions relating to damages, which, under the influence of the judgment in Case 18/63, was amended in the course of the oral part of the proceedings to the effect that the applicant claims the sums which he would have received in salary from the time of his dismissal.

III — Summary and conclusion

I therefore arrive at the following conclusion:

The Court should uphold the appeal and annul the opinion of the Establishment Board and, since the dismissal could not have been pronounced without that opinion, the decision of dismissal. It should furthermore be declared that the integration procedure must be re-applied to the applicant and that, in accordance with the general principles of law, the composition of the Board must be altered. The Court should also declare that the applicant is entitled to payment of his salary even after the date of his dismissal.

The Commission must bear the costs as substantially the application has been successful.

1 Translated from the French version.