Opinion of Mr Advocate-General Gand

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

Before examining the merits of the application made by Mr Danvin — an official of whom the defendant institution speaks highly, but whose request it declares itself unable to satisfy — I should like to recall briefly how the dispute arose.

For the creation in 1958 of the Development Fund for Overseas Countries and Territories, Provisional Regulation No 6 of the Council of 3 December 1958 provided for the appointment of an accounting officer by the President of the Commission. In fact, with the aim of ensuring the performance in all circumstances of the tasks entrusted to this officer, a decision of the President of 5 June 1959 provided that the chief accounting officer should be aided by an assistant to be appointed according to the same procedure who should deputize when the former was absent or prevented from attending to his duties. Another decision of the same date appointed Mr Danvin as the assistant accounting officer.

The functioning of the second European Development Fund, arising from the Yaounde Convention which entered into force on 1 June 1964, necessitated a number of quite fundamental changes in the administrative organization of the Fund, notably the creation of an independent department controlling the accounts, the establishment of which necessarily reduced to some extent the powers and responsibility of the accounting officer. The implementation of the reform took place over a long period and was marked by the following events: on 25 February 1965, Mr Heusghem, until then chief accounting officer, was appointed as officer responsible for accounts; by decision of the Communities of 20 December 1965, Mr Bering, a Principal Administrator, was appointed as accounting officer of the Fund, but did not take up his duties until the following June, during which time Mr Danvin had to deputize for him on the ground that the former was absent or prevented from attending to his duties. From 25 February 1965 to 1 June 1966 inclusive, Mr Danvin, who was a Principal Administrative Assistant (Bl) and the assistant accounting officer, deputized successively for Mr Heusghem and Mr Bering.

On 12 January 1966 he claimed the differential allowance provided for by Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations for an official occupying a post temporarily; this was refused him for reasons which I shall examine later. Today he asks the Court to order the Commission to pay to him an allowance calculated on the basis of the principles set out in Article 7(2) and which he estimates, provisionally, at BF 100000. We must examine the merits of his claims.

A —. The first submission ot the action — and practically the only one — is based on infringement of the Staff Regulations.

B —. The above discussion saves me from having to deal at length with a submission advanced on a purely subsidiary basis and which is concerned with unjust enrichment. First of all, I am not at all certain that such an action can be invoked in relations between an institution and its servant, which are governed by the Staff Regulations. Moreover, what does unjust enrichment involve in this case? Likewise, what is the damage which Mr Danvin has suffered? I think there is nothing to be gained from transposing concepts of private law into an area for which they have not been conceived.

However that may be, I think the Court should:

1 Translated from the French.