(d)

The applicant complains that in his case the appointing authority failed :o apply the decision, and in particular Article 3 of the decision, correctly, inasmuch as he was not classified in Grade L/A 6 despite the fact that he was expressly acknowledged to have professional experience of five years and eight months. In that respect it must be borne in mind in the first place that under Article 3 the appointing authorky retains an element of discretion even where the requirements as to professional experience laid down in that article arc satisfied. Thus it provides that the appointing authority “may exceptionally and in order to meet recruitment requirements” derogate from the normal rules on classificado i. Contrary to the view put forward by the applicant in the alternative, it is not a question of whether recruitment requirements militated against his classification in a higher grade; on the contrary it was for the Commission to assess whether special recruitment requirements justified a departure from the normal rules. If my understanding is correct, the applicant does not claim that the Commission exercised its discretion improperly; rather he is concerned with the assessment of his professional experience, which constitutes the basis for the exercise of the discretion provided for in Article 3. As regards the criterion for assessing that experience, Article 3 refers expressly to Article 2, which in that respect provides that: “Professional experience with regard to the post to be filled shall be assessed on the basis of all the activities in which the candidate has engaged before recruitment.” With regard to the career bracket L/A 7 -L/A 6 it is further stated in point 3 (c) of Annex II that: “100% credit is given for relevant experience at a level equivalent to Category A work (as translator, economist, lawyer, etc.)”. The applicant considers that, in accordance with those provisions, his studies abroad and his work in the fields of economics, administration and sociology, which involved the use of foreign languages, must be regarded as professional experience of at least five years within the meaning of Article 3. The Commission points out, on the other hand, that its standard practice has always been to apply those provisions so that only fulltime work as a translator is regarded as relevant experience for translators who, like the applicant, are recruited for general translation. The first point to be borne in mind in that respect is that the question whether an authority has exercised its discretion lawfully depends not so much on the different conceivable interpretations of internal rules but rather on the manner in which the discretion was actually exercised. In the light of the general principles of equal treatment, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, there is however some doubt whether in its standard practice the administration may depart from published internal administrative directives which, as was the case in Louwage, ( 11 ) are clear and unequivocal and leave no room for any other interpretation. In this case, however, that question may remain open, since, in relation to the assessment of professional experience, the text of the decision is by no means clear and unequivocal and in any case allows the administration a margin of discretion. In establishing whether professional experience may be taken into account, the activities engaged in prior to recruitment are to be assessed with regard to the post to be filled. It is thus for the appointing authority to decide, having regard to the candidate's future duties, the extent to which it considers his previous experience relevant and therefore capable of being taken into account. The fact that classification in the higher grade of the starting career bracket is permitted only exceptionally, where specific departmental requirements make it necessary to appoint a specially qualified official, justifies the application of a strict standard. The criterion governing classification in grade also differs in principle from the criterion governing recruitment inasmuch as, in the recruitment of candidates for general translation work, the widest possible range of experience is sought, whereas, with regard to classification, it is possible by way of exception to take into account the need for specially qualified officials. Finally, it also follows from those considerations that the fact in another competition for the recruitment of principal administrators in Grade A 5 the applicant's professional experience was calculated at seven years does not mean that the appointing authority in this case must recognize that he has at least five years' professional experience. Even if it is conceded to the applicant that neither Article 31 of the Staff Regulations nor the decision of 6 June 1973 refers expressly to particular or specific professional experience, consideration of those provisions as a whole from a teleologicai point of view shows in any event that the Commission did not exceed the power entrusted to it in adopting as its standard practice the principle that only fulltime work as a translator was to be considered sufficient relevant experience for general translation over a period of five years. In that respect it must be remembered that the second paragraph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations provides that the appointing authority may grant an official additional seniority in his grade, taking account of his training and specific experience. That is all the more reason why it must be regarded as permissible if also in the context of Article 31 (2) of the Staff Regulations, which governs exceptions to the principle of recruitment in the starting grade, importance is attached to specific experience. Another consideration which suggests that the restrictive administrative practice applied by the Commission is lawful is the fact that, according to Article 3 of the decision of 6 June 1973, for Grade L/A 6 a minimum of five years' professional experience is required, whilst for Grade A 6 evidence must be furnished of at least eight years' professional experience. That distinction is objectively justified only if translation, for which the special category L/A was created, is regarded as a special activity which, for the most part, is different to other areas of the administration. If that assumption is accepted, it is at least not illogical if for the work of a general translator, who in principle may be called upon to work in various different fields, only fulltime experience as a translator is regarded as relevant professional experience such as to justify a departure from the normal rules on classification. Setting aside the question, which we need not consider here, whether such a practice is appropriate, it does, at any event, as the Commission rightly states, have the advantage of establishing workable and objective standards for the equal treatment of all general translators.