MADE BETWEEN THE PARTIES ARISE FROM THE IMPLIED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEM .
THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THOSE CONTRACTS FALL WITHIN PUBLIC LAW OR PRIVATE LAW .
IN THE PRESENT CASES ONE OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES, THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, ACTING WITHIN THE POWERS CONFERRED ON IT BY THE TREATY, HAS LEGAL PERSONALITY AS LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 210 OF THE TREATY . THIS PERSONALITY IS ONE OF PUBLIC LAW BY VIRTUE OF THE POWERS AND DUTIES APPROPRIATE TO IT . CONSEQUENTLY THE CONTRACTS AT ISSUE WERE CONCLUDED BY A PERSON AT PUBLIC LAW .
P . 473
MOREOVER, THOSE CONTRACTS WERE CONCLUDED TO ENABLE THE LANGUAGE SERVICE OF THE COMMISSION TO FUNCTION PROPERLY . THE WORK OF THAT SERVICE, WHICH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE ACTS OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE IDENTICAL IN THE FOUR OFFICIAL LANGUAGES OF THE COMMUNITY, CONSTITUTES AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN THE PROCEDURE WHICH HAS AS ITS PURPOSE THE FORMULATION IN EACH LANGUAGE OF THOSE ACTS; THUS THAT SERVICE IS OF THE SAME PUBLIC NATURE AS THE COMMISSION ITSELF .
THEREFORE THE CONTRACTS AT ISSUE COME UNDER PUBLIC LAW AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL RULES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW .
EXISTENCE OF A RIGHT TO SECURITY OF TENURE
THE APPLICANTS ARGUE THAT, AS THE LEGAL RELATIONSHIP CREATED BY THE CONTRACTS AT ISSUE COMES UNDER PUBLIC LAW, IT CONFERS UPON THEM THE ADVANTAGES OF A SET OF RULES PENDING THE PROMULGATION OF STAFF REGULATIONS AND GIVES THEM A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT .
THEREFORE, THE CONTESTED DECISIONS TO DISMISS THE APPLICANTS, IN TERMINATING THAT RELATIONSHIP, INFRINGED THE RULES OF LAW APPLICABLE TO THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR ENGAGEMENT AND WERE ACCORDINGLY IRREGULAR .
THIS ARGUMENT IS UNFOUNDED .
ARTICLE 246 ( 3 ) OF THE TREATY PROVIDES THAT, UNTIL THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS AND THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF OTHER SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITY PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 212 HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN, EACH INSTITUTION SHALL RECRUIT THE STAFF IT NEEDS AND TO THIS END CONCLUDE CONTRACTS OF LIMITED DURATION .
IT FOLLOWS FROM THAT PROVISION THAT NO RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYMENT EXISTING BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND ITS SERVANTS BEFORE THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 212 OF THE TREATY HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN CAN CREATE ANY PERMANENT LEGAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES .
IN CONSEQUENCE, STAFF RECRUITED BEFORE THAT DATE CANNOT, ON THE BASIS OF THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH THEY WERE ENGAGED, LAY CLAIM TO APPOINTMENT TO PERMANENT POSTS OR TO THE BENEFITS OF THE FUTURE STAFF REGULATIONS, SINCE SUCH APPOINTMENTS AND SUCH BENEFITS ARE IN THEMSELVES INCONSISTENT WITH THE LIMITED NATURE OF ANY EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP CREATED BEFORE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE SAID STAFF REGULATIONS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT .
ALTHOUGH THE CONTRACTS AT ISSUE WERE NEVERTHELESS CONCLUDED FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD, THIS IS EXPLAINED BY THE IMPOSSIBILITY AT THE TIME WHEN THEY WERE CONCLUDED OF ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS OF LIMITED DURATION PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 246 ( 3 ) OF THE