ADMISSIBILITY
THE DEFENDANT HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY AGAINST APPLICATION 48/64 ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS OUT OF TIME .
IN FACT, AS A DECISION UPON THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL SUBMITTED ON 4 SEPTEMBER 1963 WAS NOT TAKEN, THE APPLICANT ONLY BROUGHT THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT ON 29 OCTOBER 1964 .
THE APPEAL WAS THEREFORE NOT FILED WITHIN THE PERIOD PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
APPLICATION 48/64 IS THEREFORE OUT OF TIME AND CONSEQUENTLY INADMISSIBLE .
ON THE OTHER HAND NO OBSERVATION NEED BE MADE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL 1/65, FILED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE NOTIFICATION OF THE CONTESTED DECISION TO THE PERSON CONCERNED .
P.356
ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE
IN ALLEGING THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION INFRINGES ARTICLE 102(1 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, THE APPLICANT ATTEMPTS TO BRING BEFORE THE COURT AN ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF ANNEX I TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS . THIS GROUND OF COMPLAINT IS MATERIALLY CONNECTED WITH THE SECOND, AND IT IS DESIRABLE TO CONSIDER THEM TOGETHER .
THE APPLICANT HAS BASED HIS APPLICATION ON ANNEX I TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND ON THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION OF 29 JULY 1963, ADOPTING THE TABLE OF DEFINITIONS OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS ATTACHING TO EACH POST AND NOTIFIED TO THE STAFF IN THE EEC COMMISSION STAFF INFORMATION BULLETIN NO 54 OF 2 OCTOBER 1963, AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE DEFINITION IN THE SAID TABLE OF THE DUTIES OF A PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH HE CONSIDERS IS THE ONLY ONE APPLICABLE TO THE POST HELD BY HIM . HIS POST CORRESPONDS EITHER TO THAT OF AN OFFICIAL ENGAGED IN PLANNING DUTIES, OR THAT OF HEAD OF ONE PARTICULAR SECTOR OF ACTIVITY IN A DIVISION, OR OF HEAD OF A SPECIALIZED DEPARTMENT .
THE APPLICANT'S ALLEGATIONS ARE WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION . ALTHOUGH THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED AND THE INFORMATION FURNISHED SHOW THE ZEAL AND COMPETENCE WITH WHICH THE APPLICANT CARRIED OUT HIS DUTIES, THEY ARE NOT SUCH AS TO PROVE THAT THE ABILITY AND KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICANT'S POST EXCEED THOSE OF A POST IN GRADE B1 AND CLEARLY FALL WITHIN THE PLANNING DUTIES REFERRED TO BY THE ABOVEMENTIONED DESCRIPTION .
THE APPLICANT CLAIMS ALTERNATIVELY THAT HE OCCUPIES THE POSITION OF A HEAD OF ONE PARTICULAR SECTOR OF ACTIVITY IN A DIVISION .
THE TERMS ' SECTOR OF ACTIVITY ' AND ' ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT ' DO NOT CORRESPOND TO CLEARLY DISTINCT CONCEPTS, AND THEREFORE THEIR APPLICATION TO THE DIFFERENT SUBDIVISIONS OF AN INSTITUTION IS TO A CERTAIN EXTENT DISCRETIONARY AND DEPENDS ON THE GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES .
WHILST THE APPLICATION OF THESE CONCEPTS TO A PARTICULAR CASE MAY GIVE RISE TO CRITICISM, THIS FACT ALONE IS NOT OF ITSELF SUFFICIENT TO RENDER THE MEASURE LIABLE TO ANNULMENT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND OF MEASURES IN IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF .
ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT THE ARGUMENTS ADDUCED BY THE APPLICANT MIGHT JUSTIFY CALLING THE SUBDIVISION OF WHICH HE IS