Opinion of Mr advocate-general Mayras

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

The changes which took place in preparation for or further to the accession of the new Member States on 1 January 1973 were particularly numerous in the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Documentation and Information in the European Parliament. As part of these changes, this directorate was divided up into a Directorate-General for Information and Public Relations and a directorate which took the name of Directorate-General for Research and Documentation. As early as 1972, Mr Taylor, a British national, was appointed head of the latter directorate and, as from 1 March 1974, took more direct responsibility for the library, which comes under that directorate. During the course of the year 1973, the library was itself divided into two divisions: the Catalogue and Administration division, run by Mrs Hebrant, née Macevicius, an official of Italian nationality, recruited by competition in 1967, classified in Grade A 4 since 1 January 1973, and the References and Official Documents division, later renamed Library and Documentation. It seems that the directorate of the latter division remained without a head for some time and that during the year 1973 it was in fact placed under Mr Reid, a British national, who officially was only recruited as a temporary servant, in Grade A 5, with effect from 25 February 1974. Mrs Hebrant would appear to be one of the few officials for management, creative thinking and study who, in the midst of these vicissitudes, remained in place.

On a proposal from the new director, Mr Taylor, the Bureau of the European Parliament decided, on 23 September 1974, to undertake a sweeping reform of the library, to be carried out by Mr Taylor. So far as this case is concerned, the most important aspect of this consisted in introducing, alongside the alphabetical subject system which until then was the only one used for compiling the catalogue, a decimal classification for new acquisitions and for works of specific interest.

From the beginning Mrs Hebrant continuously made it clear that she was opposed to the introduction of this system because, quite apart from the bad opinion which she had of it, she took the view that as the person alone responsible until then for supervising the catalogue, based exclusively on the alphabetical subject system, she might find some of her duties taken away from her. This was because for the future there was to be a catalogue based on a dual system of classification, alphabetical subject and decimal, and because responsibility for supervision of the re-organization of the classification system was to be assumed by a new arrival.

Only seasoned librarians would be capable of passing a value-judgment on the course thus taken and I shall carefully avoid making such a judgment. I would only say that there is some irony in the fact that it was only when the British arrived that the idea arose of introducing the decimal classification in an institution of the old continent.

The Director-General assumed that Mrs Hebrant would hardly be interested in carrying out the re-organization of the library. Therefore, on 9 October 1974 he informed her of his decision to place this re-organization under the working party chaired by Mr Reid and composed, apart, from him, of four other servants who were also of a lower grade than that of Mrs Hebrant. Two of these were in the same section as Mr Reid, and one of these was, furthermore, a temporary servant just as he was. This working party was to meet regularly and all decisions taken by it were to be recorded and notified to all library staff.

Psychologically, this measure was not very well chosen. The Director-General was so well aware of what might be unpleasant for the applicant in the new situation that he suggested to her that she devote herself for some time to studies on the possibility of computerizing the library catalogue. In that same letter of 9 October 1974, he also attempted to dissuade her from continuing to supervize the compiling of the alphabetical subject catalogue. Friction was foreseeable since she was to take instructions from Mr Reid who from then on, reporting to the Director-General was to be responsible for re-organizing the classification system and also responsible for general supervision of the compiling of the alphabetical subject catalogue, an area over which until that time Mrs Hebrant alone had authority, and therefore the Director-General was anxious to prevent such friction to the greatest extent possible.

On 21 November 1974, Mrs Hebrant protested vigorously against the appointment of the re-organizer. On 25 November 1974, the Director-General made it clear to her in his reply that the task of the working party was only to issue recommendations. After a new note of 15 December 1974, in which she maintained her position, on 28 December 1974 Mrs Hebrant submitted a complaint to the President of the Parliament under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations requesting him to have annulled, that is to say, to revoke the dual appointment of Mr Reid to the functions of re-organizer and of chairman of the working party and to have these duties conferred on herself. By a letter of 5 May 1975, the President of the European Parliament rejected this complaint. Mrs Hebrant's application was entered in the Court Registry on 31 July 1975. Her advocate claims that the Court should annul the appointment of Mr Reid to these two functions and hold that the Parliament is guilty of a wrongful omission in that it failed to give favourable consideration to his client's complaint.

I —. As regards the application for annulment, the defendant Parliament alleges that this is inadmissible because it is directed against a measure which did not adversely affect the applicant. The Director-General's letter of 9 October 1974 did not have any effects on the applicant's remuneration; it did not mean in any way downgrading her in relation to Mr Reid; and the task conferred on him did not in any way adversely affect the status of the applicant.

II —. In order to do full justice to the applicant and putting the most favourable interpretation on the conclusions in her application, one could suppose that she is making a secondary claim for compensation for the non-material damage which she has allegedly suffered because of the irregular actions taken concerning her. The alleged irregularity is supposed to consist in the fact that an improper appointment was not abrogated and that she was not given the same appointment. However the alleged damage is not even quantified at one Luxembourg franc.

In these circumstances I am of the opinion that the application should be dismissed and that the parties should bear their own costs.

1 Translated from the French.