JUDGMENT OF 13. 5. 1970 — CASE 46/69 REINARZ v COMMISSION
In Case 46/69
THE COURT (First Chamber) composed of: R. Monaco, President of Chamber, A. M. Donner and J. Mertens de Wilmars (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate-General : K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Issues of fact and of law
I — Summary of facts and procedure
II — Conclusions of the Parties
III — Submissions and arguments of the parties
A. The applicant's appointment to the post of Principal Adviser
B. The appointment of Mr Dousset
C. The refusal to grant the car allowance from 1 October 1968 to 30 July 1969
Ground of judgments
Costs
I —. Summary of facts and procedure
II —. Conclusions of the Parties
(1). annul the decision of 18 June 1969 whereby the Commission decided to appoint the applicant a Principal Adviser;
(2). annul the appointment of Mr Dousset, the date of which is unknown to the applicant;
(3). annul the decision of the Commission not to pay the applicant the fixed travel allowance in the Brussels area;
(4). order the Commission therefore to pay the applicant the sum of 30000 francs in respect of arrears, subject to retention by the applicant of the right to amend this sum in the course of the proceedings;
(5). order the Commission to pay the applicant by way of damages the sum of one million Belgian francs, subject to retention by the applicant of the right to amend this sum in the course of the proceedings;
(6). order the Commission to pay the entire costs of the proceedings.
III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties
A. The applicant's appointment to the post of Principal Adviser
B. The appointment of Mr Dousset
C. The refusal to grant the car allowance from 1 October 1968 to 30 July 1969
1. The applicant is for the annulment:
2. The first complaints to be examined are those directed against the appointment of Mr Dousset.
3. In its judgment of 6 May 1969 the Court of Justice annulled, inter alia, the decision of the defendant of 26 June 1968 whereby, pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation No 259/68, the applicant's employment was terminated.
4. This was the decision, later annulled, which prevented the applicant from applying for a post as Director in the Directorate General for Transport.
5. Whilst the Staff Regulations do not give officials a right to any particular post, that does not mean that an official may not have a legitimate interest in preferring one post to another.
6. This, in particular, is why the Staff Regulations make it possible for an official to be transferred on his request; moreover such preference between posts, even those in the same grade, may be in the interests of the service.
7. The result of the decision annulled by the judgment of 6 May 1969 was that the defendant, when it appointed Mr Dousset on 15 January 1969, made its choice without having at its disposal a factor of assessment which ought to have been taken into account in order for it to be able to exercise its discretion fully.
8. The application is accordingly well founded on this point.
9. On the other hand the decision of 18 June 1969 appointing the applicant to a post as Principal Adviser does not adversely affect him.
10. In fact the posts of Director and of Principal Adviser fall within the same grade and the difference between their respective powers and duties, whilst it may justify a personal preference for one or the other post, yet does not infringe the rule of equivalence between grade and post on which officials are entitled to rely.
11. Furthermore this decision is not such as to hinder the Commission in the exercise of its discretionary power when, following the present judgment, it comes to fill the vacant post of Director in the Directorate General for Transport.
12. The application on this point is inadmissible.
13. The applicant further asks for the annulment of the refusal by the defendant to grant him the car allowance allowed for by Article 15 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations for the period prior to his reinstatement in Grade A 2.
14. The car allowance, whilts it is a fixed amount, is justified only if the vehicle can be used in the interests of the service.
15. However, during the period in question the applicant had been relieved of his duties and responsibilities within the service.
16. Accordingly the application is unfounded on this point.
17. According to Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice the unsuccessful party shall pay the costs.
18. However, according to Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure the costs incurred by institutions in actions involving servants of the Communities are payable by the former.
19. It is also appropriate to apply in the present case Article 69 (3) of the Rules of Procedure according to which the Court may order that the parties bear their own costs in whole or in part.
20. Since both parties have failed in one or several of their claims, the applicant should bear one half of his own costs.
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 Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, especially Article 179; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, especially Article 91 ; Having regard to Article 4 of Regulation No 259/68, THE COURT (First Chamber) hereby:
1 Annals the decision of the Commission of 15 January 1969 appointing Mr Jacques Dousset Director in the Directorate for Harmonization, Coordination and Financial Control of Infrastructures;
2 Dismisses the application against the decision of 18 June 1969 as inadmissible;
3 Dismisses the application in so far as it relates to the decision of the Commission not to pay the applicant the fixed travel allowance;
4 Orders the defendant to pay one half of the costs of the applicant.