III.

Was he then the head of a ‘specialized department’? This is an argument which was sketched out in the reply, and developed at length at the Bar. The argument is based on the fact that Mr Brus was in charge of the study and implementation of the legal provisions governing social security until recruitment of the staff who now comprise the Social Security ‘Section’ of auxiliary and local staff placed under his supervision. In this connexion the applicant refers to the qualifications required by Vacancy Notice No 802 for the official under him who presently carries out this work. The official is of necessity a specialist from which it follows that Mr Brus, as his superior, is the Head of a specialized department. Although the Head of the Section is charged with distributing duties amongst his assistants, it does not appear that the Commission, which alone is competent to create administrative units, specialized or otherwise, has recognized the existence of the Social Security ‘Section’. I shall not repeat further the considerations developed at the Bar on the difficulties to which social security gives rise and which, as has been said, produce ‘real brain-teasers’. It only remains to establish that the servant to whom the applicant refers was recruited in Grade B3 and that, although he was required to have ‘a thorough knowledge of and practical experience in the field of social security’ he was on the other hand only required to have an advanced level of secondary education or equivalent professional experience — which consequently corresponds to Category B. Contrary to what has (been said, these two requirements are not necessarily contradictory. A thorough knowledge of a limited field does not necessarily presuppose university education or the equivalent; I am almost tempted to say, on the contrary. Although this agent is, then, a ‘specialist’, his duties remain those of Category B, and no conclusions may be drawn from this as to whether his superior, Mr Brus, was to be considered as the Head of a ‘specialized department’. It seems to me that on this issue, too, the applicant's argument cannot be accepted. But, in order to establish that his duties come within Category A, Mr Brus, as you know, employs another argument, that of the requests by the Commission to the Council in 1964 and 1965 to have four B posts in the Salaries and Mission Expenses Division transformed into A5 or A6 posts. The Commission thereby recognized that the Heads of the four Sections of that Division were officials engaged in planning, advisory or supervisory duties. As you considered in the Charles Müller case that such a document ‘cannot by itself constitute legal recognition of the right of the applicant to the post referred to’, Mr Brus maintains that his situation is not identical with that of Mr Müller and that moreover his appeal is not based solely on the budgetary claims of the Commission. It seemes to me on the other hand that the situations are strictly identical. The very document invoked in the Müller case is invoked today by the present applicant. And Mr Müller did not merely limit himself to basing his case on the claims of the Commission; it was only after his principal line of argument in order to obtain classification in Category A had bean dismissed that the judgment also refused to take into account the budgetary document. One last point remains. Mr Brus has repeatedly asked you to require the Commission to produce certain documents, in particular the minutes of the meetings in March 1964 during which the Commission dealt with his request for reclassification together with the written procedure C — 182. 64 and C — 183. 64. It seems that he intends to establish with the aid of the documents that the Commission's position varied in the course of the enquiry into his complaint. This is possible, but I do not think that it is sufficient to justify producing internal documents of the institution. What matters is the decision taken by the competent authority which is contested before you. That in the course of a discussion conflicting opinions were expressed and an earlier attitude was altered as a result of a judgment given by you, are instances which can occur in any collegial institution, and no argument may be deduced from it one way or the other. Although it is an administrative body, the Commission is also entitled to expect that the secrecy of its ‘deliberations’ will be respected. Furthermore, although there are no grounds for ordering the production which has been required, I consider that nothing in the file allows it to be said that the decision of 30 November 1964 deciding the complaint of Mr Brus infringed Article 5 of the Staff Regulations Annex I, or the Commission's decision of 29 July 1963. In conclusion I should like to add that the applicant also referred to the infringement of Article 102 (1) of the Staff Regulations, because Annex I was adopted by common accord by the Councils of the Communities and thus constitutes the standardization of practice provided for by the said Article 102. It plainly is not, and the submission should therefore be dismissed.