JUDGMENT OF 15. 12. 1966 — JOINED CASES 15/64 AND 60/65 MOREAU v COMMISSION

In Joined Cases 15/64 and 60/65

THE COURT (First Chamber) composed of: A. Trabucchi (Rapporteur), President, L.Delvaux and R. Lecourt, 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

Case 15/64

Case 60/65

The submission based on Article 102 (1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials.

The submission relating to the revaluation of the applicant's post

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

Admissibility

The substance of the case

Case 15/64

Case 60/65

Costs

I —. Facts

II —. Conclusions of the parties

1. Rule that the implied decision of refusal to grant his request of 21 February 1964 is null and void;

2. Rule that his appointment, to the extem to which it classified him in Grade A 4, is null and void;

3. Rule that the Commission is obliged to classify the applicant in Grade A 3, at the step to which he is legally entitled, with effect from 1 January 1962;

4. Order the Commission to pay to the applicant by way of arrears of salary the sum of 1 franc subject to the right to amend this sum as he may deem necessary during the course of the proceedings;

5. Order the Commission to pay to the applicant by way of damages and interest thereon for non-material damage the sum of 1 franc subject to the right to amend this sum as he may deem necessary in the course of the proceedings;

6. Order the defendant to pay the costs.

—. take note that the Commission applied to the Council for the conversion of the post occupied by the applicant, when he was integrated, into a post corresponding to the tasks which he performs;

—. declare that the Commission has not exercised its powers in an illegal manner justifying the annulment of the contested decisions;

—. consequently dismiss the application against the Commission as unfounded;

—. decide in its discretion to what extent the application is by implication directed against a decision of the budgetary authority.

—. annul the decision of the Commission of the EAEC of 14 September 1965 in so far as it determines the step at which the applicant is to be classified;

—. rule that the applicant is to be classified in Grade A 3, Step 5, with effect from 1 January 1962 with the benefit of all the resulting financial consequences and arrears of salary from that date;

—. rule that the applicant's step in his grade at the present time be determined after taking into account the biennial advancement laid down in Article 44 of the Staff Regulations;

—. order the defendant to bear the costs.

—. dismiss the application as unfounded;

—. order the applicant to bear the costs in accordance with conditions laid down in Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure.

—. take note that the applicant's conclusions in his application stand as originally pleaded with the exception of the second conclusion which must now be read as follows:

—. request the institutions which are not parties to these proceedings to produce all such information as the Court shall deem necessary for the purpose of these proceedings and, in particular, to request the Commission of the EEC to state what measures it took for the assignment of steps when the applicant's colleagues, as heads of department, in the Press and Information Department were reclassified.

—. declare that if the applicant has introduced a new claim in his reply based on a fresh issue both the claim and the issue are inadmissible;

—. reject the claim put forward as a subsidiary matter the conclusions to the reply as irrelevant because it does nothing to resolve the issue raised in this case;

—. reject the remaining claims in the application as unfounded;

—. order the applicant to bear the costs in accordance with the provisions of Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure.

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

IV —. Procedure

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinions of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Atomic Energy Community, especially Articles 91 and 102; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Articles 69 and 70; THE COURT (First Chamber) hereby:

1 Declares that Application 15/64 no longer has any purpose;

2 Dismisses Application 60/65 as unfounded;

3 Orders the defendant to pay the costs incurred in Application 15/64 up to the date of notification of the decision of the Commission of 13 January 1965 and orders the applicant to bear the costs incurred by him after that date.

4 Orders the parties to bear their own costs in Application 60/65.