JUDGMENT OF 7.7.1964 — CASE 93/63 MINOT v COMMISSION

In Case 93/63

THE COURT (First Chamber) composed of: A. Trabucchi, President of Chamber, L. Delvaux (Rapporteur) and W. Strauß, Judges, Advocate-General: M. Lagrange 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 — As to admissibility

As to 1

As to 2

As to 3

As to 4

B — On the substance of the case

1. The defendant's alleged wrongful act or omission in not having granted to the applicant the grade and remuneration appropriate to her duties

2. The refusal of integration and the consequent dismissal

(a) The procedure followed for integration

(b) The reason for the refusal of integration and for the dismissal

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

I — Admissibility

II — On the substance of the case

A — The ground of complaint relating to the irregularity of the integration procedure

B — The ground of complaint in respect of the reasons for refusal of establishment and for dismissal

C — The claim for compensation

1. The performance by the applicant of duties higher than those of her grade and salary

2. The damage suffered from the decision against integration and of dismissal

3. Inadequacy of notice

III — Costs

I —. Facts

(A). Establishment of higher education: Ladies of Mary, Higher Commercial Institute for Girls, from 1944 to 1948, degree in commercial science:

(B). Education received since the age of 14 years:

1. French shorthand, issued on 1 April 1944 by the Institut Meysmans (distinction, 100 words per minute, Document No 57 on the personal file);

2. Dutch typing, issued on 1 April 1944 by the same Institut (great distinction, 30 words per minute, Document No 58 on the personal file);

3. Dutch shorthand, issued on 17 April 1943 by the same Institut (great distinction, 100 words per minute, Document No 59 on the personal file);

4. Scientific examination, issued on 29 June 1943 by the Ladies of Mary at Aalst (great distinction, Document No 60 on the personal file);

5. Official diploma of the final examination in commercial science, issued on 26 June 1944 by the Ladies of Mary at Aalst (distinction, Document No 61 on the personal file).

1. The first, dated 3 July 1963 and signed by Mrs Beel, Head of the commercial and technical schools of the Ladies of Mary at Aalst, is worded as follows:

2. The second, dated 3 July 1963 and signed by Mother Marie-Thérésa, Mother Superior of the Ladies of Mary at Aalst, states:

II —. Conclusions of the parties

A. The applicant requests in her application that the Court should:

B. The defendant contends in its statement of defence that the Court should:

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. The failure of the defendant to grant to the applicant throughout her service the grade, the remuneration and the advantages attaching to the duties carried out by her:

2. The decision against integration and of dismissal taken by the defendant on 17 July 1963 and notified to the applicant by letter of 25 July 1963;

3. The wrongful acts or omissions committed by the defendant and its servants in fixing the grade and the benefits attaching to the duties actually carried out by the applicant, as well as those committed within the framework of the integration procedure and on the occasion of the abovementioned decisions.

A —. As to admissibility

1. The classification of an official depends upon the discretionary power of the administration;

2. The application is out of time;

3. The individual decisions which are the subject of the application have become final;

4. The applicant did not first refer the matter to the Commission of the EAEC.

B —. On the substance of the case

1. The failure of the defendant to carry out its obligation to confer upon her, from 1 January 1959 at least, the administrative and financial status corresponding to the duties actually carried out by her;

2. The refusal of the opposing party to integrate her as an official at a grade and step corresponding to her abilities and to the duties carried out by her, which refusal was based on incorrect, insufficient and inadequate reasons;

3. The fact that the decision of dismissal taken in respect of the applicant lacks all legal basis and, as an alternative point, has not been communicated to the applicant with sufficient notice.

1. The defendant's alleged wrongful act or omission in not having granted to the applicant the grade and remuneration appropriate to her duties

2. The refusal of integration and the consequent dismissal

(a). The procedure followed for integration

(b). The reason for the refusal of integration and for the dismissal

1. In her letter of 21 March 1958 applying for employment she relied essentially upon her ability and her experience, which have never been questioned;

2. What in the above letter she described as degree is a course of studies organized by the Institute of the Ladies of Mary at Aalst, not leading to the grant of any official diploma but the standard of which is recognized in the region.

1. No advanced course was given between 1944 and 1948 at the Institute of the Ladies of Mary at Aalst;

2. During this period the applicant had two full-time posts with a firm in Aalst and a firm in Brussels;

3. As the application form mentioned only one of these two firms, and moreover with false dates, it constitutes a false declaration.

1. that the primary studies she made are not contested:

2. that if the secondary studies she made included only five years of studies whilst the humanities lasted for six, it is clear that the expression humanities was used in its ordinary sense, which covers in actual fact the secondary course of studies;

3. that she maintains that she actually followed a course of advanced commercial studies, for which a diploma or certificate of studies was awarded.

1. that she actually followed a course of advanced studies from 1944 to 1948 organized by the Institute of the Ladies of Mary at Aalst and that the records of this Institute have been lost:

2. that the dates and details of her employers shown in her application form under the heading of previous employment are perfectly correct.

3. The length of notice

IV —. Procedure

I —. Admissibility

II —. On the substance of the case

A —. The ground of complaint relating to the irregularity of the integration procedure

B —. The ground of complaint in respect of the reasons for refusal of establishment and for dismissal

C —. The claim for compensation

1. The performance by the applicant of duties higher than those of her grade and salary

2. The damage suffered from the decision against integration and of dismissal

3. Inadequacy of notice

III —. 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 Atomic Energy Community; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Articles 69, 70 and 95; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Atomic Energy Community, especially Articles 34, 91 and 102; THE COURT (First Chamber) hereby:

1 Dismisses Application No 93/63 as unfounded;

2 Orders the parties to pay their own costs.