JUDGMENT OF 9.6.1964 — JOINED CASES 79 AND 82/63 REYNIER v COMMISSION

In Joined Cases 79 and 82/63

THE COURT (Second Chamber) composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, R. Rossi and R. Lecourt (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

A — The Commission named as defendant

B — Principal request

C — Subsidiary application

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

Admissibility

The Substance

Costs

I —. Facts

II —. Conclusions of the parties

1. Declare their appointments null and void in so far as these establish them in Grade A 4;

2. Declare null and void the refusal of the Commission of 21 May 1963 to grant their request for reclassification ;

3. Rule that the Commission must place the applicants in Grade A 3;

4. As a subsidiary point:

5. Hold that the European Economic Community and if necessary the Commission must bear the costs of the action in full:

6. Place on record the fact that the applicants:

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

A —. The Commission named as defendant

B —. Principal request

C —. Subsidiary application

IV —. Procedure

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 Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, especially Article 179; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Economic Community, especially Articles 5, 66, 90, 91, 102 and Annex I; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Article 69, THE COURT (Second Chamber) hereby:

1 Annuls the Decision of 21 May 1963 whereby the Commission refused to reclassify the applicants Reynier (Case 79/63) and Erba (Case 82/63);

2 Refers the cases back to the Commission;

3 Orders that the costs of these applications and those of Cases 98 and 99/63, including the costs of the applications for the adoption of an interim measure, be borne by the Commission.