1.

The cases to which this Opinion refers are primarily concerned with the consequences of Council Regulation No 3087 of 21 December 1978 on the remuneration of officials employed in the small town of Ispra, in the Province of Varese, Northem Italy. There are essentially two points at issue: the adequacy of the new weighting laid down by the abovementioned regulation in relation to the cost of living and the date as from which the weighting should have been applied. A number of the cases also raise the problem of the adverse effects of Council Regulations Nos 3085 and 3086/78 on the cost for officials of transferring part of their remuneration abroad. In that respect the Court has already dismissed the officials' claims in Cases 817, 828 and 1253/79 by its three judgments of 4 February 1982 ([1982] ECR 245, 269 and 297). I shall now give a brief summary of the course of events in the cases in which the Court is called upon to give judgment. Case 158/79 A — By a complaint addressed to the Commission on 11 April 1979 Monique Roumengous, née Carpentier, an official employed by the Commission at the Ispra Joint Research Centre, objected to the payment of her remuneration in accordance with the abovementioned Council Regulation No 3087/78 in so far as the adjustment of the weighting had been made effective only as from 1 January 1978 and therefore did not extend to the years 1976 and 1977. The Commission rejected that complaint by means of a circular letter of 12 July 1979. Mrs Roumengous subsequently brought a legal action on 11 October 1979, claiming that both Regulation No 3087/78 and the measures adopted by the Commission to implement it were unlawful. She therefore sought a declaration that the regulation in question was inapplicable to her, annulment of the calculation of the arrears due to her and recognition of her entitlement to a sum resulting from the application of the 6.4% increase of the weighting with effect from 1 January 1976, a sum which should be paid “in order to take into account the Varese price levels” which were “higher than those of Rome”, together with interest thereon. In lodging its reference the Commission raised a formal objection of inadmissibility. Initially therefore only that aspect of the dispute was dealt with and after the oral procedure (sittings on 19 and 20 February 1981) the Advocate General delivered his Opinion on 14 May 1981 ([1981] ECR 1512). By order of 30 June 1981 the Court decided to reserve its decision on the objection for the final judgment. The procedure was therefore resumed and the case was heard on 14 July of this year. Case 737/79 B — On 26 March and 6 April 1979 Dino Battaglia, an official employed at the Ispra Centre, addressed two complaints to the Commission regarding the fact that the arrears paid to him, together with his remuneration for January 1979, as a result of the adjustment of the weighting for Italy prescribed by the abovementioned Regulation No 3087/78 were calculated with effect from 1 January 1978 rather than from 1 January 1976. The complainant asked the Commission to take “the appropriate measures to compensate for the loss of purchasing power” which had occurred in the years 1976 and 1977. The Commission replied in the negative by means of the circular letter of 12 July 1979 to which I have already referred. Subsequendy, by a document lodged on 17 October 1979, Mr Battaglia brought an action against the Commission, claiming that the decision rejecting his complaint and the application to him of Regulation No 3087/78 were unlawful. Accordingly he sought: (a) annulment of the decision adopted by the defendant institution which, in addition to paying the arrears resulting from the increase in the weighting with effen only from 1 January 1978, had calculated the arrears without taking into account the cost of living in the Province of Varese; (b) a declaration that Regulation No 3087/78 was inapplicable to him in so far as it entered into force with effect only from 1 January 1978; and (c) a declaration by the Court that the applicant was entitled, for the years 1976 and 1977, to supplementary remuneration, to be determined on the basis of the cost of living in the Province of Varese, plus interest thereon ; (d) in the alternative, an order that the defendant should pay him damages; (e) in the further alternative, a finding that the conditions which necessitated an adjustment of remuneration already existed in 1976 and that therefore the Council should have adopted the appropriate measures to ensure that officials remuneration was calculated, without discrimination, in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations. The Commission objected that the application was inadmissible and in consequence the Court set down a hearing in order to consider on y that objection. On 14 May 1981 the Advocate General delivered his Opinion, again relating only to the objection of inadmissibility. By order of 30 June 1981, as in the Roumengous case, the Court directed that a decision on the objection should be reserved for the final judgment. Finally, at the sitting on 14 July 1982, the second phase of the oral procedure was completed. Case 343/79 C — Anton Birke, an official of the European Communities, also employed at the Ispra Centre, addressed two complaints to the Commission on 27 March and 11 April 1979, stating in the first place that as a result of the application of Regulations Nos 3085 and 3086 his real salary had been considerably reduced and, in the second place, that Regulation No 3087 did not render the increase in the weighting applicable to the years 1976 and 1977. By a further complaint of 21 June 1979 (lodged, on a coordinated basis, at the same time as those of many other officials at the same place ot employment), Mr Birke objected to the application of Regulations Nos 3085 and 3086 to his salary, regard being had in particular to the effects of those regulations regarding the conditions for the transfer of part of his remuneration abroad. The Commission made its position clear by means of two circular letters of 12 July and 28 September, rejecting the claims. Mr Birke then brought an action before this Court against the Commission and the Council, by an application lodged on 11 October 1979, in which he sought: (a) annulment of his salary statements for the months of January to April 1979 and of the Commission s decisions of 12 July and 28 September 1969 in reply to his complaints; (b) a declaration that he is entitled to remuneration commensurate with the cost of living in the Province ot Varese or, in the alternative, in the Province of Rome, calculated with effe from 1976; (c) a declaration that he is also entitled, for the period after 1 April 1979, to remunerauon in Italian lire at least equal to the remuneration received by him in that currency in March of the same year, account being taken of the effect on his total remuneration of the payments made abroad in accordance with Article 17 ot Annex VII to the Suff Regulations and of the adjustment of the level of remuneration as from 1 April 1979; (d) in the alternative, a declaration that the adjustment of his remuneration in accordance with the new criteria for calculation laid down in Regulations Nos 3085 and 3086 should be carried out by means of appropriate transitional measures, in relation to future (real) increases of salary; (e) in the further alternative, a declaration that he is entitled to the application of the new régime to his remuneration in accordance with the conditions laid down regarding pensions in Article 4 of Regulation No 3085 (that is to say, with effect from 1 October rather than 1 April 1979, the reduction to be carried out in stages over a period of 10 months) ; (f) in any event, rectification by the Commission of the amount of the remuneration payable to him in accordance with heads of claim set out in the foregoing paragraphs and an order that, together with the Council, it should pay the applicant the difference between what was paid and what was due, plus interest. Both the Council and the Commission objected that the application was inadmissible. The Court adopted the same approach as in the Roumengous and Battaglia cases, that is to say it set down a hearing to deal only with the matter of admissibility. On 14 May 1981 the Advocate General delivered his Opinion on that matter. The Court, by judgment of 12 November 1981, declared the action brought against the Council to be inadmissible; as regards the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Commission, it decided not to rule on that question before the parties had submitted their arguments on the substance and the documents relating thereto ([1981] ECR 2669, paragraph 30 of the decision). Finally, at the silting on 10 December 1981 the second stage of the oral procedure took place, in which of course the Commission was the only defendant. Case 799/79 D — Günter Bruckner, an official of the European Communities employed at the Ispra Centre, addressed a complaint to the Commission on 21 June 1979, together with numerous other officials, opposing the application to their remuneration of Council Regulations Nos 3085 and 3086 of 1978, in particular because of the effect of such regulations on the conditions for the transfer abroad of part of their remuneration. That complaint was similar to that lodged by Mr Birke on 21 June 1979, to which I referred earlier. The Commission made its position clear by means of the circular letters of 12 July and 28 September 1979, which I have already mentioned, rejecting Mr Bruckner's requests. He then brought an action against the Commission and the Council by a document lodged on 12 November 1979, in which he made claims which to a considerable extent coincided with those made by Mr Birke; but he did not challenge the salary statement for January 1979 and consequently he did non seek recognition of entitlement to remuneration commensurate with the cost of living in the Province of Varese or, in the alternative, in the Province of Rome, calculated as from 1 January 1976. The Council objected that the application was inadmissible. On 27 December 1979 the applicant extended the scope of his application and also contested the salary statement for January 1979, which marked the first occasion on which Regulation No 3087 was applied. By a document lodged on 11 February 1980 the Commission objected that the additional claim was inadmissible. The Court decided to confine the oral procedure to consideration of the matter of admissibility and subsequently the Advocate General delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 14 May 1981. By judgment of 12 November 1981 ([1981] ECR 2697) the Court declared that the action brought against the Council was inadmissible. On 10 December 1981 the second stage of the oral procedure was completed, the Commission being the only defendant. Joined Cases 532, 534, 567, 600, 618 and 660/79 E — By a number of complaints having the same subject-matter, lodged ón 27 March and 11 April 1979, Jan Amesz, Rolf Bauch, Jakob Flamm, Hans Hoffmann, Helmut Knoeppei and Henricus Nijman, all officials of the European Communities employed at the Ispra Joint Research Centre, stated that, as a result of the application of Regulations Ńos 3085/78 and 3086/78, their real salary had been considerably reduced and further that Regulation No 3087/78 had not extended the increase of the weighting to the years 1976 and 1977. By further complaints lodged on 21 June 1979 the same officials opposed the application of Regulations Nos 3085 and 3086 to their salary, referring in particular to the effects of those regulations on the conditions for transfer abroad of part of their remuneration. These complaints are the same as those submitted by Mr Birke, to which I referred earlier. The Commission stated its position by means of circular letters of 12 July and 28 September 1979, rejecting the officials' complaints. The officials then brought actions against the Council and the Commission by applications lodged on 11 October 1979 containing claims fairly similar to those in Mr Birke's application. The Council objected that the action against it was inadmissible. By order of 10 November 1981 the Court directed that the six cases be joined for the purposes of the oral procedure and judgment, in view of their related subject-matter. By a separate order of the same date the Court then declared that the six applications were inadmissible in so far as they were directed against the Council. Finally, the cases were heard on 10 December 1981, with the participation of the applicants and the Commission.