Judgment of the Court (second chamber) of 15 April 1975 Michelina Santopietro v Commission of the European Communities

In Case 61/74

THE COURT (Second Chamber) composed of: A.T. Mackenzie Stuart, President of Chamber, H. Kutscher and M. Sørensen (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate-General: A. Trabucchi, Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts

I — Facts and procedure

II — -Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

Law

Costs

I —. Facts and procedure

1. Mrs Pitrone (née Santopietro) entered the service of the Commission as a shorthand - typist on 16 March 1972 as a member of the auxiliary staff. On 26 July .1972 she entered into a contract with the Commission as a member of the temporary staff. The contract was for a period of one year from 1 August 1972 to 31 July 1973.

2. After asking by letter of 26 October 1973 for an explanation from the Directorate of Personnel of the Commission and, on 27 November 1973, meeting some officials of that Directorate, the applicant submitted a complaint within the meaning of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials against the decision of 12 October 1973.

II —. -Conclusions of the parties

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. The applicant asks the Court to declare that she held a contract as a member of the temporary staff expiring on 31 July 1974 and that the Commission was not entitled to terminate that contract otherwise than in accordance with the conditions laid down by Articles 47 et seq. of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities.

2. In addition, and as a consequence of such declarations, she asks that the Commission be ordered to pay to her her slary for the period from 1 November 1973 to 31 July 1974.

3. It is appropriate, first of all, to establish whether the competent authority of the Commission offered the applicant a renewal of her contract of emplyoment for a period of one year.

4. Although the Commission's departments appear to have had the intention of renewing the applicant's contract for a period of one year, such intention was not crystallized in a express offer to the applicant by the appointing authority.

5. The only express offer of a renewal of the contract coming from that authority and addressed to the applicant was the offer in the two letters of 24 and 28 August 1973 to extend the contract for a period of three months.

6. Even if it were assumed that the computer card of 24 August 1973 concerning personal information on the applicant could be interpreted as containing an offer for the extension of her contract for a period of one year, that offer would in any event have been revoked by the express offer of an extension of three months contained in the two letters of 24 and 28 August 1973.

7. Moreover it is established that the applicant received the computer card and the two letters at the same time.

8. She therefore never had an offer of the extension of her contract for a period of one year, which she could have accepted.

9. The applicant's remaining conclusions presuppose that the existence of a contract for one year is established.

10. The application must therefore be dismissed.

11. Under the terms of Articles 69 (2) and 70 of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs, but in proceedings commenced by servants of the Communities against institutions, institutions shall bear their own costs.

12. However, under the terms of Article 69 (3) the Court may in exceptional circumstances order that the parties bear their own costs in whole or in part.

13. Because of the lack of clarity in the conduct of the Commission, both by reason of the delay with which it indicated its intentions with regard to the applicant's administrative position and by reason of the contradictory particulars with which it supplied her, it is appropriate to apply this provision and to require the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

On those grounds THE COURT (Second Chamber) hereby:

1 Dismisses the application;

2 Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay th costs.

1 Language of the Case: French.

2 The extension has already been sent.

3 According to the copy in the applicant's personal file, this document was worded as follows:I would ask you to take note that the appointing authorithy has decided to extend your contract of employment as a member of the temporary staff until 31. 10. 1973. The conditions of work and the other provisions contained in your original contract will remain unchanged. I would therefore ask you to return to me a copy of this letter duly signed.