OPINION OF MR LAGRANGE — CASE 93/63 MINOT v COMMISSION

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

The conclusions in the application by Mrs Minot (nee Van Nuffel) fall into two categories. The first are concerned with the regularity of the administrative position which she held under the contract of employment by which she was bound to the administration (Euratom Commission) until her dismissal and result in a request for compensation of516000 FB because of the alleged loss of the benefits connected with the duties which she carried out from 1 January 1959 to 31 August 1963. The second are directed towards the annulment of the decision against integration and of dismissal taken on the basis of Article 102 of the Staff Regulations and towards the consequential award of damages. We must note that, contrary to what usually happens, we are not faced here with an unfavourable opinion of the Establishment Board, which binds the appointing authority according to Article 102, but with a decision taken by the Executive Commission of Euratom itself on the basis of an unfavourable report of the Establishment Board.

A — Conclusions concerning the execution of the contract

1. Admissibility. The defendant Commission applies itself in long explanations to contesting the admissibility of these conclusions by claiming that they are out of time.

2. As to the substance of the case, the whole argument of the applicant consists in claiming that, at least from 1 January 1959, she in fact carried out duties of a nature and of an importance superior to those which correspond to the category and the grade which were given to her in the service.

B — Conclusions concerning refusal of integration

Three grounds of complaint are alleged, one concerning the irregularity of the procedure, another relating to the reasons, and a third dealing with the length of notice.

1. In respect of the procedure, the applicant cites the delay with which the Board presented its unfavourable report, that is, on 9 July 1963, having decided on the previous 4 July to refer the matter to the Euratom Commission, whilst the establishment report drawn up on 17 April 1962 was very favourable to her and the Establishment Board itself had expressed a favourable opinion on 25 July, 1962 on the basis of that report.

2. In respect of the reasons, I need only quote:

3. In respect of the period of notice, there has been a proper application, in the present case as in other cases with which you have already dealt or will have to deal, of the contract (one month's notice) and of Article 102 of the Staff Regulations (2 months' salary). The applicant cannot claim further compensation, since the decision against integration is not annulled.

I am of the opinion :

1 Translated from the French.