61982CJ0193_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
IN JOINED CASES 193 TO 198/82
MARIA ROSANI,
LUIGI DELLA GROCE DI DOJOLA,
PIETRO LAROSA,
FRANCESCO BASTREGHI,
SOSSIO GIAMETTA,
FULVIO STELLIO,
OFFICIALS OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, ASSISTED AND REPRESENTED BY EDMOND LEBRUN OF THE BRUSSELS BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF TONY BIEVER OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR, 83 BOULEVARD GRANDE-DUCHESSE-CHARLOTTE,
APPLICANTS,
V
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, BRUSSELS, REPRESENTED BY JOHN CARBERY, AN ADVISER IN THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COUNCIL IN BRUSSELS, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF H . J . PABBRUWE, DIRECTOR OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK, 100 BOULEVARD KONRAD-ADENAUER,
DEFENDANT,
Subject of the case
APPLICATIONS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISIONS OF 14 MAY 1982 ASSIGNING THE APPLICANTS TO POSTS OF REVISER/PRINCIPAL TRANSLATOR IN GRADE LA 4, OF THE NOTICES OF ADJUSTMENT OF 15 SEPTEMBER 1981 STATING THAT THE APPLICANTS WERE PLACED AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE DEPARTMENT REFERRED TO THEREIN AS REVISERS/PRINCIPAL TRANSLATORS AND OF THE DECISIONS OF 14 MAY 1982 REJECTING THE APPLICANTS '
COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE NOTICES OF ADJUSTMENT OF 15 SEPTEMBER 1981,
Grounds
1 BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 30 JULY 1982 THE APPLICANTS, WHO ARE OFFICIALS IN THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, BROUGHT AN ACTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' ' THE STAFF REGULATIONS ' ' ) FOR THE ANNULMENT OF VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COUNCIL ASSIGNING THE APPLICANTS TO POSTS OF REVISER/PRINCIPAL TRANSLATOR .
2 ARTICLE 5 ( 4 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS PROVIDES :
' ' A TABLE SHOWING BASIC POSTS AND CORRESPONDING CAREER BRACKETS IS GIVEN IN ANNEX I .
BY REFERENCE TO THIS TABLE EACH INSTITUTION SHALL, AFTER CONSULTING THE STAFF REGULATIONS COMMITTEE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 10, DEFINE THE DUTIES AND POWERS ATTACHING TO EACH BASIC POST . ' '
3 ANNEX I TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS, AS AMENDED BY COUNCIL REGULATION NO 912/78 OF 2 MAY 1978 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1978, L 119, P . 1 ) SHOWS UNDER THE HEADING ' ' LANGUAGE SERVICE ' '
THAT CAREER BRACKET LA 4/LA 5 COMPRISES THE BASIC POSTS OF BOTH ' ' HEAD OF TRANSLATION OR INTERPRETATION GROUP ' '
AND, ON A SEPARATE LINE, ' ' REVISER, PRINCIPAL TRANSLATOR, PRINCIPAL INTERPRETER ' ' .
4 FOLLOWING THAT AMENDMENT OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF 2 MAY 1978 THE COUNCIL ADOPTED ON 17 MARCH 1981 IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 5 ( 4 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS A DECISION AMENDING, INTER ALIA, THE DEFINITION OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE OFFICIALS OF THE LANGUAGE SERVICE OF THE COUNCIL . THAT NEW DECISION DEFINES THE DUTIES OF A REVISER AND THOSE OF A PRINCIPAL TRANSLATOR IN IDENTICAL TERMS .
5 AS A RESULT OF THE NEW DEFINITION OF DUTIES THE ADMINISTRATION SENT TO THE APPLICANTS NOTICES OF ADJUSTMENT DATED 15 SEPTEMBER 1981 INFORMING THEM
THAT IN FUTURE THEY WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE CARRYING OUT THE DUTIES OF ' ' REVISER/PRINCIPAL TRANSLATOR ' '
AND NO LONGER THOSE OF ' ' REVISER ' '
ALONE .
6 ON RECEIPT OF THE NOTICES THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTED COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS SEEKING TO SECURE THE RETENTION OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE DESIGNATIONS AND POSTS OF REVISER AND PRINCIPAL TRANSLATOR AND REQUESTING THAT THE POST OF HEAD OF TRANSLATION GROUP SHOULD BE OPEN TO THEM .
7 BY MEMORANDA OF 14 MAY 1982, THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL INFORMED THE APPLICANTS THAT THE NOTICES OF ADJUSTMENT OF 15 SEPTEMBER 1981 WERE TO BE REGARDED AS VOID INASMUCH AS THEY HAD NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY . THE COUNCIL REJECTED THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICANT ' S COMPLAINTS AND COMMUNICATED TO THEM DECISIONS NOS 432 TO 437/82 OF 14 MAY 1982 CONFIRMING THAT REJECTION .
8 THE APPLICANTS HAVE BROUGHT ACTIONS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THOSE DECISIONS, OF THE MEMORANDA OF 14 MAY 1982 AND OF THE NOTICES OF ADJUSTMENT OF 15 SEPTEMBER 1981 .
9 THE COUNCIL RAISES THREE OBJECTIONS OF INADMISSIBILITY . NEVERTHELESS, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER FIRST THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE, AND TO DETERMINE SUBSEQUENTLY WHETHER IT IS STILL NECESSARY TO RULE ON THE SUBMISSIONS AS TO INADMISSIBILITY RELIED ON BY THE COUNCIL .
10 THE APPLICANTS BASE THEIR ACTIONS ON THE CLAIM THAT THE GENERAL DECISION OF 17 MARCH 1981 DEFINING THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF OFFICIALS OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES IS UNLAWFUL INASMUCH AS IT COMBINES IN A SINGLE BASIC POST THE BASIC POSTS OF REVISER AND PRINCIPAL TRANSLATOR . THEY MAINTAIN THAT IN SO DOING, AND IN THUS DISREGARDING THE POLICIES PURSUED BY OTHER INSTITUTIONS, THE COUNCIL INFRINGED THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 5 ( 4 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS WHICH PROHIBITS THE DEFINITION OF TWO BASIC POSTS IN IDENTICAL TERMS .
11 THE FACT THAT THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 5 ( 4 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS REQUIRES THE INSTITUTIONS TO DEFINE THE DUTIES OF ' ' EACH ' '
BASIC POST IN NO WAY IMPLIES THAT THEY MUST DEFINE THEM DIFFERENTLY . THAT APPLIES IN PARTICULAR
IN RESPECT OF DUTIES WITHIN THE SAME GRADE, CONCERNING SIMILAR POSTS WHICH ARE AS CLOSELY LINKED AS ARE THE POSTS OF REVISER AND PRINCIPAL TRANSLATOR AND WHICH ARE LISTED IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS ON A SINGLE SEPARATE LINE .
12 MOREOVER, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT ARTICLE 5 ( 4 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS STATES THAT EACH INSTITUTION IS TO DEFINE THE DUTIES AND POWERS ATTACHING TO A BASIC POST, AND DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THAT DEFINITION BE IDENTICAL IN ALL THE INSTITUTIONS .
13 SECONDLY, THE APPLICANTS CLAIM THAT THE RELEVANT MEASURES REQUIRE THEM TO CARRY OUT TASKS WHICH ARE INFERIOR TO THEIR STATUS AND THEREFORE ENCROACH ON THEIR EXISTING RIGHTS .
14 WHILST THE DUTIES AND POWERS ASSIGNED TO AN OFFICIAL MUST ON THE WHOLE BE IN KEEPING WITH THE POST WHICH CORRESPONDS TO THE GRADE HE OCCUPIES IN THE SCALE OF POSTS, AS THE COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD, THAT PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN GRADE AND POST DOES NOT APPLY IN RESPECT OF POSTS WITHIN THE SAME GRADES .
15 IN THAT RESPECT THE COUNCIL RIGHTLY POINTS OUT THAT THE APPLICANTS REMAIN ' ' REVISERS ' '
BUT BECOME IN ADDITION ' ' PRINCIPAL TRANSLATORS ' ', WHICH ENABLES THEM TO CARRY OUT NEW DUTIES BUT IN NO WAY LOWERS THEIR RANK . MOREOVER, IT APPEARS FROM THE CASE-LAW OF THE COURT THAT AN INSTITUTION IS ENTITLED TO EXPECT THAT SENIOR OFFICIALS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY ADAPTABLE TO FILL POSTS OF DIFFERENT KINDS ( JUDGMENT OF 28 MAY 1970 IN CASE 39/69 PECO ( 1970 ) ECR 361 ).
16 IN THEIR THIRD SUBMISSION, FINALLY, THE APPLICANTS TAKE ISSUE WITH AN EXCHANGE OF LETTERS BETWEEN THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF PERSONNEL AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE STAFF COMMITTEE FROM WHICH IT APPEARS THAT THE COUNCIL DOES NOT COMTEMPLATE USING THE BASIC POST OF HEAD OF TRANSLATION GROUP . IN THAT RESPECT, IT NEED ONLY BE OBSERVED THAT SUCH CORRESPONDENCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A DECISION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 90 ( 1 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ; IT FALLS MERELY WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION INASMUCH AS IT DOES NOT EMANATE FROM THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY .
17 AS CONSIDERATION OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPLICANTS HAS ESTABLISHED THAT NONE OF THEIR SUBMISSIONS MAY BE ACCEPTED, THE APPLICATIONS MUST BE DISMISSED AS UNFOUNDED . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS OF INADMISSIBILITY RAISED BY THE COUNCIL .
Decision on costs
COSTS
18 UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
19 HOWEVER, UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
THE COURT ( THIRD CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATIONS ;
2.ORDERS EACH OF THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .