Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. The applicants, who are all Commission officials, are of the opinion that the classification of their posts in Category D does not correspond to the work which they actually carry out; that work, they say, falls under Category C, according to the Table showing Basic Posts as provided for in Article 5 of the Staff Regulations, published in the Commission's Administrative Notices No 373 of 9 July 1982.

2. Before examining the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Commission in its defence, I must first define the subject-matter of this application. That is made necessary by the applicants' reply, in which they state that the action is in fact intended to obtain a declaration by the Court that they are entitled, without being subject to disciplinary measures, to refuse to carry out duties which do not correspond to their grade.

3. The Commission submits that the application as redefined above is out of time.

4. In my view the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Commission must be upheld.

5. It is purely in the interests of completeness, therefore, that I shall go on to consider the merits.

6. I therefore propose that the Court

1 Translated from the French.