1.

The applicant's first head of claim is directed against the decision of the Head of Division of 20 June 1977 giving the Head of the translation department responsibility for distributing work amongst the German translators — which had previously been carried out by the applicant. The Commission takes the view that that claim is inadmissible for failure to comply with the period for initiating proceedings. It contends that by his letter of 21 June (received on 22 June) the applicant submitted a complaint to the Commission as the appointing authority within the meaning of Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations. As no answer was given within the period of four months laid down by Article 90 (2) that complaint must be deemed to have been rejected by implication on 22 October. Accordingly pursuant to Article 91 (3) of the Staff Regulations the application should have been lodged on 22 January 1978 at the latest. In addition the defendant challenges the admissibility of the claim having regard to the legal nature of the contested measure. In its view the measure of 20 June 1977 constitutes merely an internal administrative measure which leaves unaffected the applicant's position under the Staff Regulations and does not constitute a measure that can be challenged under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant on the other hand argues that the letter of 21 June does not constitute a complaint within the meaning of Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations but merely a request within the meaning of Article 90 (1). This, he states, is clear from the wording ‘I request’ and is moreover confirmed by the letter of Mr Baichère of 27 July which similarly refers to the applicant's ‘request of 21 June 1977’. Furthermore for one who is not a lawyer it is not always easy to distinguish between a request and a complaint and their respective consequences. In the applicant's view the Commission should therefore have drawn his attention to the fact that the letter was to be regarded as a complaint and that any application to the Court of Justice would have to be lodged within a certain period. Moreover the measure in question, which contrary to the wording used in the note was not provisional, in fact detrimentally affects his position in the service, inter alia by harming his career. Even though he was not given a higher rank than his colleagues the fact cannot be denied that as co-ordinator he carried out managerial functions as against the other revisers and this certainly influenced his administrative status. The duties of a co-ordinator are given particular emphasis both in his staff report and in the ‘Translator's Practical Guide’. With regard to the classification of the applicant's letter of 21 June 1977 to the President of the Commission, I would say that according to the consistent case-law of the Court of Justice, in determining the nature of a legal instrument, reference should be made not to the formal criterion of the external appearance or the description of the measure by the author or a third party but solely to the objective content and the true significance of the instrument. For that reason alone the words with which the applicant headed the letter or Mr Baichere's description of it is irrelevant. The decisive factor is rather that in that letter amongst other claims the applicant requested that the Commission should without delay ‘withdraw the measures taken by Mr Pignot (Head of Division IX/D/3) against me’. In my opinion that wording clearly shows that the applicant did not intend to submit a request for a decision relating to him within the meaning of Article 90 (1) of the Staff Regulations but rather sought the annulment of the measures taken against him by the appointing authority and was thus submitting a complaint within the meaning of Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations. Accordingly from the date of receipt of that complaint, 22 June 1977, the periods laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations began to run. On 22 October 1977 at the latest the complaint was to be regarded as having been rejected by implication and pursuant to Article 91 (3) of the Staff Regulations the applicant should have lodged an appeal against that decision by 22 January 1978 at the latest. The aforesaid periods are exclusive periods which the Court must apply of its own motion and which allow no scope for considerations of what is reasonable. There is no reason to emphasize particularly that the rejection of the request by the Commission of 8 February 1978 after the expiry of the periods could not set them running again. As the letter of 21 June further shows the applicant's clear and unambiguous intention to lodge a complaint there was no reason for the Commission under the principle of good faith to call the applicant's attention to the fact that the period for lodging an application to the Court had started to run. Furthermore I agree with the Commission that in this particular case the withdrawal of responsibility for distributing work constitutes a measure which relates solely to internal administration and does not constitute a measure which may be challenged under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations. In the judgment in the case of Hébrant (nee Macevicius) (Judgment of 20 May 1976, Case 66/75 [1976] 1 ECR 593) the Court held that a measure coming within the power of internal organization of an institution can be actionable under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations only if it adversely affects the rights which the person concerned has under Articles 5 and 7 of those regulations, especially by requiring him to carry out duties which do not correspond to his post and grade. For such to be the case, it is not sufficient that the said measures should bring about a change or even any reduction in the responsibilities of the person concerned, but it is necessary that, taken together, his remaining responsibilities should fall clearly short of those corresponding to his grade and post, taking account of their character, their importance and their scope (see also in this respect Case 16/67 Labeyrie v Commission [1968] ECR 293; and Case 129/75 Hirschberg (nee Nemirovsky v Commission [1976] 2 ECR 1259). It is clear from the facts that in the course of 1975 the applicant, a reviser in Grade L/A 4, was orally entrusted with the co-ordination of work of the other five German translators in the Administrative Commission. In this respect it should first be observed that the post of co-ordinator as such is not mentioned in the list of basic posts and corresponding career brackets in Annex I A to the Staff Regulations. On the other hand in the Translator's Practical Guide of October 1975 issued by the Directorate General for Personnel and Administration it is emphasized that the activities of a co-ordinator concern purely technical matters. It is there expressly stated that authority is wholly in the hands of the Head of Division who also bears sole responsibility for distributing work. The position of coordinator is thus not linked to the post and the rights of an official under the Staff Regulations. The withdrawal of such activities led, it is true, to a reduction in the scope of the applicant's duties but it did not detrimentally affect his legal position under the Staff Regulations. Withdrawal of responsibility for co-ordination therefore related exclusively to internal matters and the running of the administration which the applicant's superiors are empowered to lay down and alter in accordance with the requirements of the service. In this respect the provisional or final nature of the measure is not relevant. The applicant is, it is true, right in saying that the mention of the functions of a co-ordinator in the staff report may affect an official's career and his promotion prospects. That fact alone however does not entitle an official to continue to carry out such duties which were assigned for reasons internal to the service and which are not related to his post. To summarize therefore I conclude that the first claim must be rejected as inadmissible both because the application was lodged out of time and because the applicant has no legal interest.