Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 July 1974. - Franz Becker v Commission of the European Communities. - Case 10-74.



European Court reports 1974 Page 00867

Greek special edition Page 00415

Portuguese special edition Page 00427



Summary

Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Keywords

++++

OFFICIALS - TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS - TRANSITION FROM THE FORMER ECSC GENERAL REGULATIONS TO THE ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS - RESETTLEMENT ALLOWANCE - CALCULATION

( ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 99 ( 3 ))

Summary

A TRANSITIONAL PROVISION ISSUED ON THE TRANSITION TO A LESS GENERAL SYSTEM DOES NOT NORMALLY SEEK TO GIVE EMPLOYEES GREATER RIGHTS THAN THEY WOULD HAVE HAD UNDER THE SYSTEM WHICH IS REVOKED .

ARTICLE 99 ( 3 ) CANNOT THEREFORE BE INTERPRETED AS ALLOWING A COMBINATION OF THE MORE FAVOURABLE METHOD OF CALCULATION OF ONE SYSTEM WITH THE MORE FAVOURABLE SALARY SCALE OF ANOTHER .

Parties

IN CASE 10/74

FRANZ BECKER, FORMER COMMUNITY OFFICIAL, REPRESENTED BY VICTOR BIEL, AVOCAT AT THE COUR SUPERIEURE DE JUSTICE, LUXEMBOURG, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF HIS AVOCAT, 71 RUE DES GLACIS, APPLICANT,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER JOSEPH GRIESMAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE AT THE CHAMBERS OF ITS LEGAL ADVISER, PIERRE LAMOUREUX, 4 BOULEVARD ROYAL, LUXEMBOURG, DEFENDANT,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT OF THE DEFENDANT'S IMPLIED REJECTION OF THE APPLICANT'S CLAIM TO BE GRANTED RESETTLEMENT ALLOWANCE EQUAL TO FOUR MONTHS OF HIS FINAL SALARY,

Grounds

1 THE APPEAL FILED AT THE REGISTRY ON 11 FEBRUARY 1974 SEEKS THE ANNULMENT OF THE IMPLIED DECISION REJECTING THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE APPLICANT ON 20 AUGUST 1973 THAT HIS RESETTLEMENT ALLOWANCE SHOULD BE PAID ON THE BASIS OF FOUR MONTHS OF HIS FINAL BASIC SALARY .

2 ARTICLE 99 ( 3 ) OF THE ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS, WHICH COMES UNDER TITLE VIII CONCERNED WITH TRANSITIONAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS, PROVIDES THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE RESETTLEMENT ALLOWANCE DUE TO ESTABLISHED OFFICIALS UNDER THE OLD ECSC STAFF REGULATIONS WHO TERMINATE THEIR SERVICE AFTER THE NEW REGULATIONS COME INTO FORCE SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT WHICH THE PERSONS CONCERNED WOULD HAVE RECEIVED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE FORMER ECSC GENERAL REGULATIONS .

3 A TRANSITIONAL PROVISION ISSUED ON THE TRANSITION TO A LESS GENEROUS SYSTEM DOES NOT NORMALLY SEEK TO GIVE EMPLOYEES GREATER RIGHTS THAN THEY WOULD HAVE HAD UNDER THE SYSTEM WHICH IS REVOKED .

4 SUCH A PROVISION CANNOT THEREFORE BE INTERPRETED AS ALLOWING A COMBINATION OF THE MORE FAVOURABLE METHOD OF CALCULATION OF ONE SYSTEM WITH THE MORE FAVOURABLE SALARY SCALE OF ANOTHER .

5 ARTICLE 99 ( 3 ), IN PROVIDING EXPRESSLY THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLOWANCE PAID TO AN OFFICIAL SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THAT WHICH HE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF THE FORMER REGULATIONS, WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT AN OFFICIAL WHO TERMINATES HIS SERVICE AFTER THE NEW SYSTEM HAS COME INTO FORCE FINDING HIMSELF FINANCIALLY IN A LESS FAVOURABLE POSITION THAN HE WOULD HAVE HAD IF HE HAD LEFT THE SERVICE BEFORE THE NEW SYSTEM CAME INTO FORCE .

6 HAVING REGARD TO THE NEW SALARY SCALES IN FORCE SINCE 1 JANUARY 1962, WHEN THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLOWANCE EQUAL TO TWO MONTHS' BASIC SALARY IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT EQUAL TO FOUR MONTHS' BASIC SALARY AT THE SAME GRADE CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF THE OLD SALARY SCALES, THIS PROVISION ENABLES THE OFFICIAL CONCERNED TO ENJOY THE MORE FAVOURABLE TERMS .

7 AS SOON AS THE NEW SALARY SCALES DOUBLE THE SALARIES PRIOR TO 1962, THIS SAFEGUARD CLAUSE IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE .

8 THE APPEAL MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED AS UNFOUNDED .

Decision on costs

9 THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN HIS APPEAL .

10 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY MUST BEAR THE COSTS .

11 NEVERTHELESS, UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, IN ACTIONS BY STAFF OF THE COMMUNITIES THE INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS,

THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )

HEREBY :

1 . DISMISSES THE APPEAL;

2 . ORDERS EACH PARTY TO BEAR ITS OWN COSTS .