A.

The applicant in the action which I am to consider today successfully took part in Open Competition No COM/A/301, organized by the Commission, and was therefore in August 1980 included on the list of successful candidates drawn up by the Selection Board. She subsequently took part in another open competition organized by the Commission, No COM/LA/331, in which she was again successful, and was accordingly placed on the list of successful candidates by the Selection Board in October 1981. At that time (more precisely, between September and December 1981), she was apparently, employed as a trainee in Directorate Generál XI of the Commission. As a result of her success in the second competition referred to, the applicant was able to take advantage of a vacancy which arose at that time in the Language Service of the Commission. By a decision of 25 January 1982, she was appointed a probationary translator with effect from 14 December 1981 and classified in Grade LA 7, Step 2. She was later established in that post with effect from 14 September 1982 by a decision of 22 September 1982. Shortly before that date Vacancy Notice No COM/1207/82 was published, relating to the post of an administrator in Career Bracket A 7/6 in the Directorate General for Science, Research and Development. Owing to her previous experience, the applicant was more interested in that type of work than in the work of a translator and she therefore applied for the post. She was appointed to the post with effect from 1 December 1982, by a decision of 13 December 1982 (which was apparently not communicated to her until 6 January 1983), on the basis of her successful participation in Competition No COM/A/301. Her grading (at Grade A 7, Step 2) was unchanged; the decision stated that her seniority in that grade dated from 1 December 1981. The applicant considers that at that stage the special experience which she had acquired over a period of more than nine years and which had no bearing upon her appointment as a translator, ought to have been taken into account, on the basis of the Decision of the Commission of 6 June 1973, adopted inter alia under Articles 31 and 32 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, on the criteria applicable to step and grade classification upon recruitment. On 1 March 1983 she therefore requested the appointing authority, in view of the experience which she claimed to have obtained in administration from 1973 onward (and which she set out in detail), to be classified in Grade A 6. As the applicant received no reply (which must be deemed to be an implied decision rejecting her request), she on 29 September 1983 submitted a complaint to the appointing authority. In it, she again expressed the view that because of her special experience she ought to be graded in A 6, Step 1, with one year's seniority in step. That complaint was expressly rejected by a decision communicated to the applicant on 23 February 1984, stating that, because the applicant had already been established by a prior decision, the decision of 13 December 1982 could not be regarded as an appointment within the meaning of Articles 31 and 32 of the Staff Regulations (and for that reason the applicant had not been required to serve a probationary period). Therefore Articles 31 and 32 of the Staff Regulations and the related Commission Decision of 1973 could not be applied on that occasion. On 23 May 1984 the applicant lodged an application with the Court of Justice, claiming the annulment of the decision of 13 December 1982 in so far as it classified her in Grade A 7, Step 2, and, so far as necessary, the express rejection of her complaint. In support of her claim and to prove that Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 6 June 1973, which provides that appointment may be made to Grade A 6 if the candidate gives evidence of professional experience of at least eight years, ought to have been applied in her case, the applicant argues that ‘appointment’ within the meaning of Article 31 of the Staff Regulations covers not only the original recruitment but also any appointment to a post which signifies the beginning of a new career (if the person concerned has special experience which was not taken into consideration at the time of the original recruitment). She also refers to Article 4 of the Staff Regulations, from which it is clear that a post can be filled only by appointment or promotion. If a transfer to a new post cannot be regarded as promotion — as in the applicant's case it cannot (because she was not promoted to a higher grade after consideration of the comparative merits of several candidates, but was instead transferred from the Language Service to Category A on the basis of a competition) — it must therefore be regarded as an appointment. In addition, the application refers to the principle of equality of treatment, contained in Article 5 (3) of the Staff Regulations (which provides that identical conditions of recruitment and service career are to apply to all officials belonging to the same category or the same service). That principle requires that she should be treated in the same way as other candidates in Competition No COM/A/301, and in particular in the same way as external candidates. If the criteria laid down in the 1973 Decision in order to ensure ‘identical conditions of recruitment and service career’ are applicable to them, they must also apply to the applicant, whose special experience is relevant to an administrative post and could not be taken into account on her appointment as an established official. The Commission does not regard that argument as conclusive. In its opinion, the appointment of 13 December 1982 cannot be regarded as a ‘recruitment’ within the meaning of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, because at that time the applicant was already an official of the Communities. It argues that Articles 31 and 32 of the Staff Regulations and the 1973 Decision can in reality be applied only once, namely at the time of theoriginal recruitment. If it is so applied, there can be no question of breach of the requirement of equality of treatment. It is impossible to compare the situation of the applicant with that of external candidates: there is an essential difference, because the applicant was already an official, as shown by the fact that she did not have to complete any further probationary period.