AN OFFICIAL WHO BEGINS A PROBATIONARY PERIOD MAY NOT BE ESTABLISHED IN A GRADE CORRESPONDING TO A CAREER BRACKET WHICH IS HIGHER THAN THAT IN WHICH HE WAS RECRUITED WHEN HE BEGAN HIS PROBATIONARY PERIOD . ACCORDINGLY , IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT AN OFFICIAL RECRUITED UNDER THE SYSTEM EMBODIED IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS BENEFITS FROM A SITUATION COMPARABLE TO THAT OF THE APPLICANT WHO , FOLLOWING HIS ESTABLISHMENT IN GRADE A 3 , CLAIMS TO RELY , FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES , ON GRADE A 6 IN WHICH HE WAS PLACED MORE THAN THREE YEARS PRIOR TO HIS ESTABLISHMENT .
17 THE APPLICANT DEDUCES HIS FINAL ARGUMENT FROM THE FACT THAT A COMMISSION OFFICIAL , AFTER RECEIVING THE APPLICANT ' S LETTER OF 23 APRIL 1980 , DREW UP THE CERTIFICATE OF ESTABLISHMENT ADDRESSED TO THE LUXEMBOURG FUND AND THAT THE CERTIFICATE SPECIFIES 1 OCTOBER 1958 AS THE ' ' DATE OF ESTABLISHMENT . ' ' CONSEQUENTLY , THE COMMISSION ACCEPTED BY IMPLICATION THE ARGUMENT PUT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANT AND IS THUS NO LONGER IN A POSITION TO CHALLENGE ITS VALIDITY .
18 THAT ARGUMENT IS UNTENABLE . IT IS TO BE OBSERVED THAT THE CERTIFICATE IN QUESTION WAS MADE OUT ON A FORM DRAWN UP IN ADVANCE BY THE LUXEMBOURG FUND ON THE BASIS OF THE LAW OF 14 MARCH 1979 AND , IN PARTICULAR , OF ARTICLE 7 THEREOF . THE SCOPE OF THE TERM ' ' ESTABLISHMENT ' ' CONTAINED IN THAT LAW DIFFERS FROM THE SCOPE OF THE SAME TERM AS USED IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS . IT APPLIES NOT ONLY TO OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS BUT ALSO TO OFFICIALS OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WHERE THE CONCEPT OF ESTABLISHED OFFICIALS IS UNKNOWN . THE APPLICANT IS THEREFORE MISTAKEN IN DRAWING FROM THE USE OF THE WORD ' ' ESTABLISHMENT ' ' IN THAT CERTIFICATE THE CONCLUSION THAT THE COMMISSION , BY VIRTUE OF THAT FACT ALONE , RECOGNIZED HIS ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AS FROM OCTOBER 1958 . FURTHERMORE , THE COMMISSION HAS STATED IN THE COURSE OF THE ORAL PROCEEDINGS THAT THE COMMISSION OFFICIAL WHO COMPLETED THAT FORM GAVE THE APPLICANT TO UNDERSTAND , BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER ITS COMPLETION , THAT HE CONSIDERED THE APPLICANT ' S ARGUMENT , ACCORDING TO WHICH HE BECAME ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS BEFORE THEY ENTERED INTO FORCE , TO BE MISTAKEN . IT FOLLOWS THAT THE APPLICANT HIMSELF KNEW THAT THE CERTIFICATE DID NOT HAVE THE SCOPE WHICH HE NOW ATTRIBUTES TO IT BEFORE THE COURT .
19 IT IS APPARENT FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANT THAT THE APPLICATION MUST BE DISMISSED AS UNFOUNDED .
Decision on costs
20 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
21 HOWEVER , UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ,