JUDGMENT OF 15. 12. 1966 — CASE 59/65 SCHRECKENBERG v COMMISSION

In Case 59/65

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

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

A — Admissibility

B — Substance

(a) On the application for annulment

(b) The alternative claim for damages

Grounds of judgment

The principal claim for classification in Grade A 3

The alternative claim for damages

Costs

I —. Facts and Procedure

II —. Conclusions of the parties

1. declare that the refusal of the Commission on 22 September 1965 to comply with his request and complaint submitted by letter of 8 July 1965 is void and of no effect;

2. declare and adjudge that the Commission shall be bound to classify the applicant as from 1 January 1962 in Grade A 3, Step 2, with an additional biennial advancement in step in accordance with Article 44 of the Staff Regulations;

3. in the alternative, declare and adjudge that the Commission shall pay the applicant by way of damages a sum corresponding to the differential allowance provided for in Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations, which he should have received as from 1 January 1962 and which is assessed at 100000 Belgian francs, subject always to the right of the applicant to claim an increased sum in the course of the proceedings;

4. in any event, declare and adjudge that the Commission must bear the entire costs of the proceedings.

—. dismiss the objection of inadmissibility raised by the defendant;

—. declare that the applications for annulment and damages are out of time and therefore inadmissible;

—. uphold the defendant's preliminary objection on a procedural issue ;

—. in the alternative, declare the said applications to be unfounded and dismiss them;

—. order the applicant to pay the costs to the extent provided for by Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

—. take notice that the applicant repeats the conclusions set out in his application;

1. order the Commission to produce the documents and in particular the reports on which were based the decisions taken at the 282nd and 283rd meetings (item XI of the 282nd meeting and item XV of the 283rd meeting);

2. order the Commission to produce document EUR/C/1651/63 f and the letter of 8 March 1965 from the Commission to Dieter Mosthaf;

—. accept the conclusions set out in its statement of defence;

—. dismiss the alternative requests submitted by the applicant in his reply as both inadmissible, in the absence of the explanation required by Article 42 (1) of the Rules of Procedure, and irrelevant.

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

A —. Admissibility

1. a fact or provision which concerns a number of people and not a purely individual decision;

2. a fact or decision which is capable of affecting the administrative position of the applicant.

B —. Substance

(a). On the application for annulment

(b). The alternative claim for damages

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 Article 152 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Atomic Energy Community; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, THE COURT (First Chamber) hereby:

1 Dismisses Application 59/65 as inadmissible;

2 Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and one half of the costs incurred by the applicant.