JUDGMENT OF 15. 7. 1970 — JOINED CASES 60, 61 AND 62/69 CHUFFART v COMMISSION

In Joined Cases

THE COURT (Second Chamber) composed of: P. Pescatore, President of Chamber, A. Trabucchi and W. Strauß (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 — Procedure

IV — Submissions and arguments of the parties

1 — Admissibility

2 — The substance

A — The requests for the grant of the allowance in question

B — The claim for damage

Grounds of judgment

I — Admissibility

II — Substance

1 — The first two heads of claim

2 — The third head of claim

III — Costs

I —. Facts

1. The applicants, who are Belgian nationals, entered the service of the High Authority of the ECSC in 1954 (Mr Chuffart) and 1953 (Mr Jaeger and Mr Janssen). At that time they were resident in Luxembourg. When the ECSC Staff Regulations of Officials (hereinafter referred to as the first ECSC Staff Regulations) were applied to them on their entry into force on 1 July 1956 they were granted the separation allowance provided for in those Staff Regulations and the General Community Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the General Regulations) which form an integral part of the first ECSC Staff Regulations.

2. In an official communication published in Staff Courier No 14 of 11 March 1968, the Commission brought to the notice of officials the list of departments which were to be established in Brussels and Luxembourg.

3. By letters dated 28 May (Mr Jaeger) and 12 June (Mr Chuffart and Mr Janssen), the defendant informed the applicants of its decision to appoint them to certain new posts, in the context of measures of administrative reorganization and rationalization of departments. These letters stated that their former postings were terminated as from 4 June (Mr Jaeger) and 20 June (Mr Chuffart and Mr Janssen).

4. In memoranda of 11 June (to Mr Jaeger) and 5 July 1968 (to Mr Chuffart and Mr Janssen) the defendant informed the applicants that:

5. By letters dated 12 July and 12 August 1968 addressed to the Director-General for Personnel and Administration at the Commission, Mr Janssen and Mr Jaeger respectively stated:

6. By memoranda of 25 September (Mr Chuffart and Mr Jaeger) and 4 November 1968 (Mr Janssen) addressed both to the officials concerned and to other departments, the Director General for Personnel and Administration noted that the expatriation allowance was to be discontinued as from 1 August (Mr Chuffart and Mr Jaeger) or from 1 November 1968 (Mr Janssen), which in fact occurred.

7. By a joint letter dated 17 June 1969 addressed to the President of the Commission, making express reference to Article 90 of the EEC-EAEC Staff Regulations, the applicants:

8. As no reply was received to that letter the officials concerned lodged the present applications which were received at the Court Registry on 16 October 1969.

II —. Conclusions of the parties

1. Annul the implied decision of rejection in issue;

2. Rule that the applicant is entitled to be paid the amount which he would have received by way of separation allowance; order the opposite party to pay him this amount;

3. Rule that as a result of acts and omissions on the part of the opposite party the applicant has suffered exceptional damage, the amount of which should be determined impartially by the Court;

4. Finally, order the opposite party to pay all the costs.

III —. Procedure

IV —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. — Admissibility

2. — The substance

A —. The requests for the grant of the allowance in question

B —. The claim for damage

1. By applications lodged on 16 October 1969 the applicants, who lost the benefit of the expatriation allowance following a change in their place of employment, requested the Court to annul the implied decisions by which the Commission refused to award them the sum which they would have received by way of separation allowance under the first paragraph of Article 97 of the second ECSC Staff Regulations.

2. In addition, they have claimed compensation for the damage which they allegedly suffered as the result of a wrongful act or omission on the part of the Commission.

I —. Admissibility

3. The defendant raises the question whether the applications are inadmissible on the ground that they were submitted outside the prescribed time-limit.

4. It claims that the concept of legal certainly required the applicants to submit a complaint through official channesl at the latest on the expiry of the third month following the first payment of the reduced remuneration, and to follow it if necessary by an appeal to the Court.

5. Moreover, the defendant claims that the staff memoranda addressed on 11 June 1968 to the applicant in Case 61/69 and on 5 July 1968 to the applicants in the two other cases, brought the imminent discontinuance of the expatriation allowance to the notice of the officials concerned.

6. The proportion of the applicants' emoluments which was discontinued in 1968 was made up of the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4 of the combined Staff Regulations.

7. The discontinuance of that allowance also forms the subject of the abovementioned staff memoranda.

8. That allowance was discontinued in pursuance of the fourth paragraph of Article 97 of the second ECSC Staff Regulations.

9. On the other hand, the present applications seek to obtain for the applicants the amount which they would have received by way of the former separation allowance, in accordance with Article 106 of the EEC-EAEC Staff Regulations and the first paragraph of Article 97 of the second ECSC Staff Regulations.

10. Thus, the present applications do not concern the measures taken by the Commission in 1968.

11. The applications are thus admissible.

II —. Substance

1. — The first two heads of claim

12. Under the first two heads of claim in their applications the applicants are seeking, first, the annulment of the implied decision rejecting their request for the award of the amount which they would have received by way of separation allowance, and secondly, a ruling that they may claim payment of this amount and an order for it to be paid by the defendant.

13. The applicants base these requests on Article 106 of the EEC-EAEC Staff Regulations and the first paragraph of Article 97 of the second ECSC Staff Regulations.

14. The content of these two provisions is the same although the first refers to officials established under the EEC-EAEC Staff Regulations whilst the second refers to officials who, having previously been subject to the first ECSC Staff Regulations, automatically became officials within the meaning of the second Staff Regulations of that Community by virtue of Article 93 thereof.

15. As the applicants fall into the latter category their applications must be considered solely within the context of the abovementioned first paragraph of Article 97.

16. The sole purpose of the first paragraph of Article 97 is to maintain for the benefit of officials who received a separation allowance under the first ECSC Staff Regulations, without qualifying for an expatriation allowance under the stricter requirements of Article 4 of Annex VII to the second ECSC Staff Regulations, the amount which they would have received by way of separation allowance under the former system.

17. Having received the separation allowance under the terms of the first ECSC Staff Regulations, the applicants qualified for the expatriation allowance under the terms of the second ECSC Staff Regulations.

18. Thus they were never in the situation referred to in the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 97.

19. Accordingly, the first two heads of claim in the application must be dismissed as unfounded.

2. — The third head of claim

20. Under the third head of claim in their applications, the applicants request the Court to rule that as a result of acts and omissions on the part of the opposite party, [they] suffered exceptional damage, the amount of which should be determined impartially by the Court.

21. This request is based on the conditions under which the applicants' expatriation allowance was discontinued.

22. The legal justification for this disadvantage is to be found in the first decisions taken by the Commission under the fourth paragraph of Article 97 of the second ECSC Staff Regulations, which became definitive when no appeal was submitted within the period laid down.

23. As the applicants were duly advised of the measures for the reorganization of departments following the merger of the institutions and the effects which these would have on their individual positions, they cannot complain that the Commission's action was such as to render it liable.

24. For this reason the third head of claim must be dismissed.

III —. Costs

25. Under the terms of Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs, although this is subject to the provision in Article 70 of those Rules according to which in proceedings brought by servants of the Communities, institutions shall bear their own costs.

26. The applicants have failed in their submissions.

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 Staff Regulations of the ECSC which came into force on 1 July 1956; Having regard to the General Regulations of the ECSC which came into force on the same date, especially Article 9 (b) ; Having regard to the ECSC Staff Regulations of Officials which came into force on 1 January 1962, especially Articles 93 and 97; Having regard to the EEC and EAEC Staff Regulations of Officials which came into force on 1 January 1962, especially Article 106; Having regard to Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down, in particular, the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (OJ L 56 of 4. 3. 1968, p. 1); Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Articles 69 and 70, THE COURT (Second Chamber) hereby:

1 Dismisses the applications;

2 Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

1 This term refers to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities laid down by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council (OJ L 56 of 4.3.1968, p. 1) hereafter referred to as the combined Staff Regulations.