3.

Finally, in a third group of submissions, Mr Landra maintains before you that by refusing to allow him to benefit from the validation which he seeks, the administration is infringing a general principle contained both in Article 48 of the provisions on pensions and in the general principles of Community law: that of the equal treatment of all the servants of the Communities. I can be quite brief as regards my consideration of the argument based on Article 48 of the regulation on pensions. It is true that this Article provided that ‘If an official so requests, his pension rights shall, notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the Staff Regulations, be computed from the date on which he entered the service of an institution of one of the three European Communities in any capacity whatever’. However, this is a transitional provision of the pension scheme which can only benefit those servants to whom the Staff Regulations of Officials apply by virtue of the provisions, which are also transitional, of those Regulations. This does not apply to the applicant who, as I have just said, entered the service of the Communities on 4 October 1965, that is, on a date when the transitional provisions of the Staff Regulations had already been inapplicable for a long time. The argument even rebounds upon the applicant, as, if the authors of the provisions on pensions had wished to indicate that, as regards servants who became officials in accordance with the transitional provisions of the Staff Regulations all their periods of service in any capacity whatever would be taken into account, notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary, it was precisely because as a general rule this was not the case. There remains the applicant s final argument which is based upon an infringement of a principle which the applicant considers to be a general principle of Community law, that is, the equal treatment of all the servants of the Communities. The applicant considers that by only providing for the taking into account of periods of service by temporary staff and not by the other categories of non-established servants, the authors of the pension scheme and of the Conditions of Employment of non-established staff infringed this principle of equal treatment. I shall not propose that you follow the applicant in this argument. It is true that certain national laws, such as, for example, the French law governing the public service, have recognized a certain principle of equal treatment of public servants, although they have been careful to attach reservations thereto. However, they have only ever accepted such a principle in relation to servants of a single unit or service, that is, in relation to servants who are subject to the same rules of recruitment and advancement and eligible for the same posts or employment. However, if it is accepted that this principle is also applicable in the law governing the Community public service (which in my opinion is far from obvious), it is in any case inapplicable in this instance. This principle would in fact prohibit the different treatment of two categories of auxiliary staff but in no way the provision for the auxiliary staff of a different scheme from that applying to temporary staff or established officials. Moreover, the methods of recruitment of the temporary staff are different from those applying to auxiliaries, they do not compete for advancement with the auxiliaries and are not eligible for the same posts or employment. Thus, by providing that auxiliary servants who, unlike the temporary servants, do not contribute to the Community pension scheme will be treated differently, on establishment, from temporary servants, I consider that the Community authorities have in no way infringed any general principle of Community law.