1.

The application of 11 September 1984 which commenced these proceedings is composed of a series of claims brought against the Commission by Angelo Valentini, an employee of that institution, seeking the annulment of three decisions concerning grading on establishment. For present purposes, however, the Court must limit itself to deciding whether the defendant's objection that the action is inadmissible is well founded; it is therefore with that problem that I shall deal in this opinion. Mr Valentini, at present an official in Grade A 6, was appointed a probationary official by a decision of 10 March 1975, following an open competition for assistant translators; he was assigned to Grade L/A 8, Step 2. Later, he was successful in an internal competition and was appointed an administrator in Grade A 7, Step 1, with effect from 1 February 1978. In March 1981 the ‘Decision on the Criteria Applicable to Grade and Step Classification upon Recruitment’, adopted by the Commission on 6 June 1973, was published. Mr Valentini thereupon requested the administration (on 4 June 1981) to reconsider whether or not the two grading decisions in his regard were based on an inadequate assessment of his relevant experience. On 3 November 1981 the Secretary of the Grading Committee informed the official that, after thorough consideration, the Committee had concluded that it could not change the opinion it had previously delivered as to his grading. Mr Valentini was not satisfied and, on 1 February 1982, asked the Committee to supply a more detailed statement of the reasons for its decision. In a memorandum of 12 May 1982 Mr Morel, the Director General for Personnel and Administration, explained to him the criteria observed by the Committee on both occasions on which it had graded him, and repeated that the relevant decisions were consistent with the regulations in force, so that there were no grounds for amending them. Almost a year later, on 22 March 1983, Mr Valentini once again approached the Committee, asking for another review of the decisions mentioned above. However, in a memorandum of 28 April 1983, the Director replied that, after the Committee's opinion of 14 April 1983, he considered it his duty, as the appointing authority, to uphold the contested gradings. Another six months went by and Mr Valentini returned to the charge, on two occasions (25 November and 6 December 1983) criticizing the Committee's replies to his questions, and requesting a review of his position. Mr Morel, however, did not change his point of view, and in a memorandum of 6 January 1984 confirmed his previous note of 28 April 1983. At that point (5 April 1984) Mr Valentini lodged a complaint under Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations. It stated that it was submitted ‘further to the rejection on 6 January 1984 of the request for regrading presented ... on 25 November 1983 pursuant to the second paragraph of the introductory text to the “Decision on the Criteria Applicable to Grade and Step Classification upon Recruitment”, published in Administrative Notices No 420 of 21 October 1983. As with that request, the purpose of this complaint is to seek [an amendment of the] decision regarding my grade, ... which was taken ... contrary to the decision ... published in March 1981’. In a memorandum of 21 June 1984 the Director replied to Mr Valentini, saying that the request submitted by him on 25 November 1983 had been considered in the light, not of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, but of the introductory text referred to in the complaint; for the fourth time he reaffirmed the grounds for holding that any amendment of the initial grading was unjustified. In response to the rejection of his complaint, Mr Valentini brought the present proceedings. As I mentioned earlier, the Commission immediately raised the objection under Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure that the application was inadmissible, and the Court decided to deal with that aspect separately from the substantive issues.