JUDGMENT OF 17. 6. 1965 — CASE 43/64 MÜLLER v COUNCIL

In Case 43/64

THE COURT composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, A. M. Donner and R. Lecourt, Presidents of Chambers, L. Delvaux, A. Trabucchi, W. Strauß and R. Monaco (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate-General: J. Gand 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

As to the naming of the defendants as parties

Admissibility

The substance of the case

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

On the naming of the defendants as parties

Admissibility

Costs

I —. Facts

II —. Conclusions of the parties

1. Annul the implied decision of the Secretary-General of the Councils of the European Communities resulting from the expiry on 15 September 1964 of the time-limit laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 91 (2) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Economic Community and of the European Atomic Energy Community rejecting a request by the applicant to be classified at Step 3 of Grade B1 with effect from 1 January 1962 with seniority at that step back-dated to 1 April 1961;

2. Order the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Communities to pay the costs.

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. After recalling the fact that in Application 28/64 the applicant had asked to be classified in a grade of career bracket A4-A5, whereas in the present application he starts from the premise that his duties are those of a post in career bracket B1, the defendants advance the argument that the conclusions of Applications 28/64 are in contradiction 28/64 are in contradiction with those of Application 43/64. The application in the present case may at the most, it seems, be considered as an alternative to that in the preceding case. However this is a proposition which the applicant seems to wish to exclude, since he argues that the two cases are independent of each other. On the other hand, disregarding the question of the grade in which the applicant should be classified, the conclusions of Application 43/64, aimed at Obtaining the third step, cannot be accepted as they are not sufficiently precise. The fact is that a step can only be granted in a grade which has already been decided upon.

2. The defendants argue furthermore that the present application is inadmissible because it was made out of time. In support of this they argue in particular that the applicant is really bringing his application against the decisions of 28 March and 21 June 1963, by which he was classified in Grade B1, Step 1, as from 1 January 1962. So the alleged damage has existed since 21 June 1963.

(a). In the first example one official has been appointed to a revalued post by means of reclassification, and the other has been recruited directly for a higher post or has been promoted to it before the Staff Regulations came into force.

(b). In the second example the two officials before the Staff Regulations came into force held posts of the same type at different steps, and the career bracket extended over two grades, whereas it only comprises one grade since the Staff Regulations came into force.

IV —. Procedure

1. In this application the applicant asks to be classified at Step 3 of Grade B1 with seniority in that Step as from 1 April 1961.

2. The defendants also assert that the present application is out of time, having regard to the fact that the alleged ground of complaint arose from the decisions of 28 March 1963 and 21 June 1963 by which the applicant was classified at Step 1 of Grade B1, so that it is against those decisions, or at least against that of 21 June 1963, that he should have directed his application within the time-limit laid down by Article 91 of the Staff Regulations.

3. It was only on 15 July 1964 that the applicant submitted to the Secretary-General of the Councils a complaint, within the meaning of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, by which he asked to be classified at Step 3 of Grade B1.

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 Economic Community and of the European Atomic Energy Community; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Economic Community and of the European Atomic Energy Community; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Article 69, 70 and 95; THE COURT hereby:

1 Dismisses the present application as inadmissible.

2 Order the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings, with the exception of those incurred by the defendant.