OPINION OF MR ROEMER — CASE 49/64 STIPPERGER v HIGH AUTHORITY

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

Like many other cases, that with which I have to deal today concerns the correct classification of the applicant in the salaries table of the Staff Regulations.

In respect of the facts, let us remember that in 1958 the applicant entered the service of the High Authority in the capacity of translator and that he was established on 2 July 1958. At the beginning he was classified in Grade L/D3 of the old Staff Regulations of the ECSC; on 2 January 1959 he was promoted to Grade L/C1 (which corresponds to Grade L/A6, Step 1, of the new Staff Regulations); with effect from 22 June 1962, the applicant, jumping a step, was classified in Grade L/A6-3.

Since the applicant was not satisfied with this classification, he made requests on several occasions that it should be improved — to his immediate superiors, to the Directorate of Internal Services as well as to the Directorate-General of Administration and Finance. Likewise he put forward his candidature, albeit unsuccessfully, at the same time as four other candidates, for the post of reviser, which had been advertised on 28 May 1964, in the Language Service of the High Authority.

Finally on 10 July 1964 in accordance with Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, he sent a formal request to the President of the High Authority asking him to classify him in the career bracket L/A5-L/A4.

The President of the High Authority replied to him on 12 October 1964 by a letter which stated that his complaint must have been based on a misunderstanding: in fact, even before the applicant's first request for an improvement in his classification, his superior had already proposed that he be promoted to L/A5-3, and this proposal was accepted by a decision of the President of 22 July 1964, with effect from 1 August 1964.

Since the applicant remained classified in career bracket L/A6-L/A5 even after his promotion, he decided to make an appeal to the Court. This appeal is directed in the first place against the note of the President of the High Authority of 12 October 1964, and secondarily against the implied decision of rejection of the High Authority which is deemed to have been taken upon the expiry of the period of two months after the applicant's complaint of 10 July 1964.

The applicant puts forward the following conclusions:

that the Court should declare that he must be classified in career bracket L/A5-L/A4; in consequence declare that the promotion granted to him with effect from 1 August 1964 is one which placed him in career bracket L/A5-L/A4; further declare that as from 1 August 1964 he should be classified in Grade L/A4; alternatively hold that in any case he is at present classified in career bracket L/A5-L/A4 and not in career bracket L/A6-L/A5.

A supplementary claim formulated for the first time in the reply and seeking an order for the removal from his personal file of certain documents (those bearing the numbers 110, 115 and 116), was resolved following an assurance given by the representative of the High Authority in the oral proceedings that the documents in question were to be removed from the personal file as soon as the Court Registry returned it to the High Authority.

As regards the conclusions of the High Authority, it has not raised any objection of inadmissibility to the appeal, but considers that in any case the applicant's claims are unfounded.

Legal consideration

1. The legal examination of this case requires me first to state the basis of the claim which has been submitted. It is the definition of the various posts which the High Authority has given in accordance with Article 5 of the Staff Regulations. To the extent that this definition is of interest to us, we note that career bracket L/A5-L/A4 is there described as follows: Expert translator, reviser able to translate particularly difficult texts.

2. Given that it is indisputable that the applicant does not exercise the duties of a reviser in the sense which has been explained and that because of this fact his request lacks an element essential to justify his claim for reclassification, we are obliged to reject as unfounded his appeal with all its individual conclusions concerning the nature of the career bracket in question without its being necessary to examine other objections of the High Authority.

3. As regards costs I would say that the applicant has been successful in respect of a part of his conclusions, that is to say, to the extent that these referred to the removal of certain documents from his personal file. It is certainly true that his appeal and the costs which flow from it were not caused by the inclusion of these documents in his personal file; but it is necessary to recognize that this procedural incident, although of a minor nature, has obliged the applicant to enlarge upon the argument in his reply. It appears to me in consequence justifiable to order that at least a certain part of his costs should be borne by the High Authority.

4. Summary and conclusion

My conclusion is accordingly as follows: The appeal of Mr Emmanuel Stipperger is admissible but is unfounded. It must be dismissed with the proviso that in accordance with Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure, the High Authority must bear its own costs and must further in accordance with Article 69 (3) of the Rules of Procedure bear a part of the costs of the applicant.

1 Translated from the German.