JUDGMENT OF 7.7.1964 — CASE 70/63 COLLOTTI v COURT

In Case 70/63,

THE COURT (First Chamber) composed of: A. Trabucchi, President, L. Delvaux (Rapporteur) and W. Strauß, Judges, Advocate-General: M. Lagrange Registrar: H.J. Eversen, Assistant Registrar

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Conclusions of the parties

A. The applicant claims:

B. The defendant contends that the Court should:

II — Statement of facts

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

A — On admissibility

1. With regard to the principal claim

2. With regard to the alternative claim

(a) Late filing and formal acceptance

(b) Deficiency of particulars in the alternative conclusions and lack of legal interest to act

B — On the merits

1. With regard to the principal claim

(a) The principle of the autonomy of the institutions

(b) Calculation by the applicant of the grade and step

(aa) The terms of paragraph (1) of the sole Article of Annex X

(bb) The work of the Committee of Presidents in 1956 on the Staff Regulations of the ECSC

(c) Paragraph (4) (b) of Annex X to the new Staff Regulations of the ECSC

(d) The material damage alleged by the applicant

2. As to the alternative claim

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

A — Admissibility

B — The substance of the case

1. Criticism of the method adopted by the defendant

2. Criticism of the method adopted by the applicant

3. Method arising from the spirit of the Staff Regulations

C — On the alternative claim

D — Costs

I —. Conclusions of the parties

A. The applicant claims:

(a). In his application that the Court should:

(b). In his reply:

B. The defendant contends that the Court should:

II —. Statement of facts

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

A —. On admissibility

1. With regard to the principal claim

2. With regard to the alternative claim

(a). Late filing and formal acceptance

(b). Deficiency of particulars in the alternative conclusions and lack of legal interest to act

B —. On the merits

1. With regard to the principal claim

1. Grade L/A 4 of the new Staff Regulations corresponds to Grade L/A of the former Regulations and Step 7 of Grade L/A (41250 francs per month) corresponds to the second additional step of Grade L/A (8220 units of account). This is in application of paragraph (1) of the sole Article of Annex X to the new Staff Regulations.

2. The value of a step in the former grade (1650 francs per month) was granted through the application of paragraph (4) (b) of the sole Article of Annex X to the new Staff Regulations.

3. The value of a step in the former grade (1650 francs per month) was granted because, under the former Staff Regulations of the ECSC, the applicant had acquired two years' seniority at the last step in his grade.

4. A compensatory allowance of 635 francs, representing the difference between the salary in Grade L/A, second additional step, and the salary of Grade L/A 4, Step 8, would have been granted to the applicant if he had not claimed Grade L/A 3. This is in application of Article 95 of the new Staff Regulations. Account has been taken of this amount of 635 francs in ascertaining the step in Grade L/A 3.

5. In order to pass from Grade L/A 4 to Grade L/A 3, the applicant has been granted the value of a new step of 1650 francs per month, in application of Article 46 of the new Staff Regulations.

6. The applicant has benefited from seniority arising from the notional step dealt with in Article 46. The calculation of the notional step results in the sum of 1585 francs, the difference between the sum which is given by the addition of items 1 to 5 below and the amount of the step in Grade 3 immediately below the gross figure obtained.

1. To carry out integration in the grade corresponding to that attributed to the official under the former provisions (linear transposition);

2. To ascertain the step in that grade by applying paragraph (4) (b) of the sole Article of Annex X to the new Staff Regulations of the ECSC (Article 102 (4) (b) of the new Staff Regulations of the EEC and EAEC);

3. To assimilate transfer to a higher grade to promotion, thus affording the person concerned the benefit of the provisions of Article 46 in order to ascertain his step in the new grade.

(a). The principle of the autonomy of the institutions

(b). Calculation by the applicant of the grade and step

(aa). The terms of paragraph (1) of the sole Article of Annex X

(bb). The work of the Committee of Presidents in 1956 on the Staff Regulations of the ECSC

(c). Paragraph (4) (b) of Annex X to the new Staff Regulations of the ECSC

(d). The material damage alleged by the applicant

2. As to the alternative claim

(a). In the period prior to the Man Regulations steps existed under the title of two-yearly increments;

(b). The right of promoted servants to retain the seniority at the step acquired in the lower grade appears as a generally accepted principle which the former Staff Regulations of the ECSC only recognized by Article 39 (3) in fine, in the same way as the new Staff Regulations have sanctioned it, with very precise rules for its application in the first paragraph of Article 46.

(c). Furthermore, independently of what has been stated above, it is impossible to ignore the fact that, in its judgment in Case 1/55 (Kergall v Common Assembly of the ECSC, 19 July 1955), which constitutes to some extent the Staff Regulations of officials of the Community ante litteram, the Court clearly laid down (Summary, paragraph 2, Rec. 1955-1956, p. 13) that, with regard to contracts of employment concluded during the period prior to the Staff Regulations, the institutions must take into consideration not only the wishes of the parties but also the intentions of the Community with regard to its servants which are clearly shown in the final draft of the Staff Regulations (judgment quoted, paragraph 7, Rec. 1955-1956, p. 24).

IV —. Procedure

A —. Admissibility

B —. The substance of the case

1. Criticism of the method adopted by the defendant

2. Criticism of the method adopted by the applicant

3. Method arising from the spirit of the Staff Regulations

C —. On the alternative claim

D —. Costs

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Community; Having regard to Articles 32, 44, 45, 46, 66, 92, 93, 94, and 95 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Coal and Steel Community and Annexes I and X thereto; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities; THE COURT (First Chamber) hereby:

1 Annuls the decision taken by the defendant institution on 14 March 1963, to the extent that it lays down the step at which the applicant is to be classified as at 1 January 1962;

2 Classifies the applicant in Grade L/A 3, Step 7, with effect from 1 January 1962 with the pecuniary consequences arising therefrom and back payment of salary from 1 January 1962;

3 Orders the defendant to pay the costs of the action.