2.

In fact in all cases such as the present the most likely source of support for the applicant is to be found in a comparison with the grade given to officials who perform similar duties. The applicant has made such a comparison on several levels. The most important consideration in his opinion is the position in the hierarchy of the authorizing officers and the financial controllers, both concerned with the implementation of the Operational Budget. Since these are classified in Grade Al, the accounting officer should be graded likewise, since his duties are a complement to the powers of the authorizing officers and the financial controllers. Let us see, therefore, what the truth of this matter really is. (a) As regards the authorizing officers, first, it seems to me — I may as well say this straight away — that even the description of their duties in the Financial Regulation is sufficient to raise considerable doubts as to the validity of the comparison put forward by the applicant. The Financial Regulation reveals that the authorizing officers are generally responsible for entry into commitments regarding expenditure, establishing entitlements to be collected and issuing proof of revenue and payments (Articles 22, 25 and 35 of the Financial Regulation). In order to do this they must undertake far-reaching and substantial investigations. According to Article 32 their clearance of expenditure verifies the existence of the rights of the creditor, the amount of the existing debts and the date on which payment falls due. According to Article 37 a payment order shall be accompanied by the original supporting documents, on which the correctness of the amounts to be paid, the receipt of supplies and the performance of the service are to be certified. A number of other functions complete the picture. Thus, it is the authorizing officer who gives approval for the final award of a contract under the adjudication procedure under Article 53. According to Article 61, in the event of any property in the inventory's being disposed of or missing, the authorizing officer shall draw up a statement accordingly which shall refer in particular to any obligation that may devolve on an official of the Communities or any other person to replace the item in question. This sketch of the duties of the authorizing officer is already sufficient to justify the conclusion that they involve a higher degreee of responsibility than those of the accounting officer and that consequently one is not bound to treat them as equal. But should one be reluctant to plunge into such delicate questions of assessment, there remains one conclusive argument provided by the Commission. The truth is simply that the authorizing officers are not as such classified in Grade Al. They are in Grade Al because they are Heads of Directorates-General, that is, by reason of their duties as Directors-General which are of course much wider than their purely budgetary responsibilities. Later the powers of authorizing officer in budgetary matters were added precisely because the Commission took advantage of the opportunity of delegating the powers of authorization which were originally vested in it. Moreover this delegation was accomplished in varying degrees, that is to say, the Directorates-General were by no means all given a uniform weight of responsibility for budgetary matters, and besides the powers were not delegated exclusively at the level of Director-General. So it is clear that a comparison of the applicant's duties with those of authorizing officers in no way helps to judge the applicant's claim. (b) The same is true or his references to the position of the financial controllers. In reality it is much more true to say of these duties than of the duties of an accounting officer that they are the complement to the powers of the authorizing officer. It is the financial controller who approves the commitments of expenditure made by the authorizing officer and his payment orders, according to Articles 24, 30 and 39 of the Financial Regulation. Moreover his authentication is required by Article 61 for the statement by the authorizing officer to be made in the event of disposal of property listed in the inventory. Of his authenticating powers, too, it can be said that they have a very broad substantive scope, involving not only (according to Article 30) establishing the availability of appropriations, but also establishing that ‘the expenditure is in order and is in accordance with the relevant provisions’. In this context the provision in Article 31 should not be forgotten. According to this in case of refusal to approve a proposal for a commitment a decision has to be obtained from the highest authority in the institution, and it is provided that the financial controller can refuse to approve even the confirmatory decision of that highest authority if the availability of appropriations is in doubt. The accounting officer, however, enjoys no such sweeping powers. The importance attached to the office of financial controller under the Financial Regulation is also evident from the fact that by virtue of Article 24 of the Financial Regulation all decisions in respect of the appointment, promotion and so on of financial controllers must be forwarded, for information, to the Council, whilst for accounting officers in this respect Article 68 requires only that the Audit Board be informed. Without going further into the question whether it was right to give the financial controller the rank of a Director-General solely on the basis of the fact that the administrative unit headed by him should be regarded as a Directorate-General in the light of its scope and significance, I think I may safely conclude that a comparison of the applicant's duties with those of a financial controller does not provide any indication that his grading is faulty. Nor, lastly, is that conclusion in any way altered by the fact that the accounting officer, according to Article 49, is not only liable to disciplinary action in respect of payments made by him but is also liable to payment of compensation, where Article 47 provides that the financial controllers are liable only to disciplinary action if budgetary appropriations are exceeded or if they are guilty of gross negligence in the performance of their duties. However, this has nothing to do with the level of their respective duties, which is the only deciding factor, quite apart from the fact that the financial responsibility of the accounting officers is balanced by the opportunity provided for in Article 49(3) of taking up insurance the cost of which is partly to be borne by the Commission.