3.

It is worth considering briefly the legal system which applies to the probationary period of European officials. In this connexion, Article 34 (1) of the Staff Regulations lays down that “Officials other than those of Grades A 1 and A 2 shall serve a probationary period before they can be established” and the first subparagraph of Article 34 (2) adds that a probationer whose work has not proved adequate for him to be established in his post is to be dismissed. The probationary period and subequent establishment (or dismissal) of the official constitute the final steps in the engagement procedure which is carried out in various stages and is governed by Chapter I of Title III of the Staff Regulations (Articles 27 to 34). With regard to the legal system applicable to local staff, I would recall in the first place that according to Article 4 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities “local staff means staff engaged according to local practice for manual or service duties, assigned to a post not included in the list of posts appended to the section of the budget relating to each institution and paid from the total appropriations for the purpose under that section of the budget”. Clearly, the concept of member of the local staff is linked to the duties performed, which must be tasks not provided for in the lists of posts appended to the budget. However, the aspect with which this dispute is most closely concerned is that of the manner of engagement which must be “according to local practice.” Articles 79 to 81 of the Conditions of Employment outline the essential features or the legal rules applicable to local staff which may be summarized as follows: local staff are engaged on a contractual basis; each institution determines in accordance with its own rules “the conditions of employment of local staff, in particular: (a) the manner of their engagement and termination of their contract; (b) their leave; and (c) their remuneration”. However those conditions must be determined “in accordance with current rules and practice in the place where they are to perform their duties.” The Community institution's social security obligations are assimilated to those imposed on employers under the law of the place of employment. With regard to disputes between the institution and a member of the local staff, they are to be submitted to the competent court in accordance with the laws of the place where the servant performs his duties. This seems to be in conformity with the general criterion laid down by Article 183 of the EEC Treaty according to which “save where jurisdiction is conferred on the Court of Justice by this Treaty, disputes to which the Community is a party shall not on that ground be excluded from the jurisdiction of the courts or tribunals of the Member States.” The system of rules governing the employment relationship of members of the local staff is therefore “hybrid” in nature inasmuch as it is derived from Community and national sources. It is true that the engagement of local staff in accordance with Article 4 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants must be in confirmity with local practice and that the rules laid down in those Conditions of Employment, as well as the provisions adopted by the institutions engaging the member of the local staff, are referred to in the individual contract of employment with the result that the system of rules may be seen essentially as a national one governed by private law which, in relations between institution and the members of its local staff, makes the binding force of Community rules dependent on its being recognized in the contract. I do not however rule out the possibility that different conclusions may be arrived at by giving prominence to the fact that the system of rules in question has been laid down in advance unilaterally and in a general manner for all the employment relationships of local staff, by the Community and, within the Community, by every Community institution concerned. If this line of reasoning is adopted, the function of the law of the place of employment appears to be in the first place to set a limit to the rule-making powers conferred on the institutions (thus taking precedence over any conflicting provisions adopted by them), and, secondly, to settle all questions which are not covered by Community rules. However, no matter which way the problem of classification is resolved, there is no doubt in my mind that the provisions on local staff adopted by each institution form part of those rules and that accordingly it is necessary in the present case also to take account of the rules adopted by the Commission on 14 May 1971 laying down the conditions of employment of its own local staff serving in Brussels.