CELEX: 61987CC0019
Language: en
Date: 1988-03-08
Title: Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 8 March 1988. # Andre Hecq v Commission of the European Communities. # Officials - Assignment of an official to a post lower than his grade. # Case 19/87.

Important legal notice

|

61987C0019

Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 8 March 1988.  -  Andre Hecq v Commission of the European Communities.  -  Officials - Assignment of an official to a post lower than his grade.  -  Case 19/87.  

European Court reports 1988 Page 01681

Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++Mr President,  Members of the Court,  1 . By his action for annulment André Hecq, an official of the Commission in Brussels, challenges his reassignment within the Buildings and Equipment Management Department . He considers that his new post is lower than his grade and that his reassignment is a disguised disciplinary measure . According to the documents produced by the Commission, the purpose of Mr Hecq' s reassignment was to terminate disputes in the sector in which he was employed .  2 . The measures contested by the applicant are :  ( a ) The memorandum dated 3 January 1986 from the Director for Administration to the Head of the Buildings and Equipment Management Department, in which it was decided in principle to "remove the applicant from the buildings sector and give him responsibility for heating and sanitation in the new buildings occupied or to be occupied by the Commission from December 1984";  ( b ) The decision of the head of department responsible, dated 23 January 1986, implementing the decision taken in principle on 3 January 1986 and defining the applicant' s new duties, together with three subsequent memoranda defining in detail the scope of those duties or confirming the previous decisions;  ( c ) The Commission' s decision of 30 October 1986 expressly rejecting the applicant' s complaint against all of the abovementioned memoranda .  3 . I would refer to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the facts . I propose to examine in order the three series of complaints on which the applicant founds his application for annulment .  I - The submission based on the infringement of Articles 5 ( 4 ) and 7 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and breach of the principle of equal treatment  4 . Article 5 ( 4 ) of the Staff Regulations provides that : "A table showing basic posts and corresponding career brackets is given in Annex I . By reference to this table each institution shall ... define the duties and powers attaching to each basic post ".  5 . According to Article 7 ( 1 ), "The appointing authority shall, acting solely in the interest of the service and without regard to nationality, assign each official by appointment or transfer to a post in his category or service which corresponds to his grade ".  6 . The applicant considers that his new duties do not correspond to his grade . The fact that he now has to work alone, without being in charge of a section of an administrative unit, is not consistent with the definition of the duties and powers attaching to the basic post of a senior technical assistant corresponding to his grade, which is BT 3 . He has thus been discriminated against as compared with his colleagues who work in a team .  7 . ( a ) As regards the complaint based on the breach of the rule requiring correspondence between grade and post, I would make the following observations .  8 . The Court has consistently held that the higher authority alone is responsible for the organization of the departments, which it must be able to determine and modify according to the exigencies of the service, without prejudice to the rights which officials and other agents enjoy under their Staff Regulations . ( 1 ) In particular, it is clear from Articles 5 and 7 of the Staff Regulations that an official has a right to expect that the duties which are assigned to him should as a whole be in keeping with the post which corresponds to the grade which he occupies in the scale of posts . ( 2 ) Withdrawing from an official one or more of the departments for which he was previously responsible may in certain circumstances amount to an infringement of this right . ( 3 ) Although a difference in the powers of the various posts in a grade might justify a personal preference on the part of an official for another post, it does not however infringe the rule of correspondence between grades and posts on which officials are entitled to rely . ( 4 ) For a measure such as that contested by the applicant to affect adversely his rights under the Staff Regulations, it is not sufficient that it should bring about a change or even a reduction in his responsibilities, but it is necessary that, taken together, his new responsibilities should fall clearly short of those corresponding to his grade and post, taking account of their character, their importance and their scope . ( 5 )  9 . It must therefore be considered whether the new duties and responsibilities entrusted to the applicant, taken together, fall clearly short of those of a senior technical assistant classified in Grade BT 3/2, as set out in the Commission Decision of 28 May 1973 ( 6 ) containing a description of the duties and powers attaching to the basic posts provided for in Article 5 ( 4 ) of the Staff Regulations . Although the Court has accepted that the appointing authority responsible for issuing the vacancy ( or competition ) notice is entitled to add to the definition drawn up by the institution the necessary special details, having regard to the needs of the service, ( 7 ) it has also held that the rule that the post must correspond to the grade, set out in particular in Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, involves, in the event of a change in the duties of an official, a comparison between his present duties and his grade and not between his present and previous duties . ( 8 )  10 . In the aforesaid decision the Commission describes the duties of a senior administrative assistant as follows :  "B 2 - B 3 : Senior Administrative Assistant - Official  in charge of a section of an administrative unit;  engaged in administrative tasks involving, where appropriate, the interpretation of regulations and general instructions;  engaged in carrying out difficult and complex tasks in the light of general directives ."  11 . In Vacancy Notice COM/P/181/84 concerning the post in Grade BT 3/2 for which Mr Hecq applied and to which he was appointed on 1 February 1984, the appointing authority described the duties to be performed as follows :  "Official engaged in carrying out, in the light of general directives, difficult and complex technical tasks concerned with heating, air-conditioning and regulating such equipment, and in particular :  supervising work carried out by firms responsible for operating and maintaining heating and sanitary installations; ( 9 )  advising on and preparing requests for tenders and supervising the carrying out of work on heating and sanitary installations;  coordinating the work of a team of technicians in the Heating and Sanitation Section ." 9  12 . The description of the duties entrusted to the applicant after he was reassigned with effect from 1 February 1986 is as follows :  "In the air-conditioning, heating and sanitation sectors :  supervising the carrying out of contracts concluded with outside firms for the maintenance and improvement of buildings and the technical installations therein;  supervising requests for work to be done, and their implementation and approval;  participating in studies carried out within the department, in drawing up files for consulting undertakings, analysing tenders received and drafting contracts;  additional administrative tasks, in particular conducting correspondence and writing progress reports in the form of a summary . "  13 . First of all, it is clear from a comparison of these different descriptions that in the B 3 post to which Mr Hecq was appointed with effect from 1 February 1984, a post which he accepted without reservation, he was already responsible for both the heating and sanitation sectors . It is therefore difficult to understand why two years later he complains that he must now take responsibility for both these sectors at once .  14 . Secondly, it is undeniable that the description of the basic post of a senior assistant in career bracket B 3/2 states that the person concerned should be in charge of a "section of an administrative unit ". It remains to be ascertained whether that expression necessarily means that the holder of such a post must have persons working under him or be responsible for "coordinating the work of a team of technicians", as was stated in the vacancy notice for the post to which Mr Hecq was appointed in 1984 .  15 . In my opinion this problem must be considered in the light of the nature of the specific duties which such an official is responsible for carrying out . In this case the applicant works in an administrative unit which is engaged not in managing staff or part of the Commission' s activities but in ensuring that the buildings occupied by the Commission' s departments are in good working order . It is clear from the memorandum from the Director for Administration dated 24 March 1986 ( Annex IV to the application ) that "the buildings for which Mr Hecq is responsible in the heating and sanitation sectors are the following ": five buildings are then listed . Thus the applicant is in sole charge of the good working order of some of the buildings for which the administrative unit to which he belongs is responsible . I consider that Mr Hecq may therefore be regarded as being in charge of a "section" of that administrative unit .  16 . The question whether or not he should be assisted in his duties by others depends upon the burden which that work entails . It is for his superiors to decide the number of buildings in which one person can reasonably be expected to be responsible for both heating and sanitation . Originally, the Director for Administration had entrusted six buildings to Mr Hecq ( memorandum dated 5 March 1986 ). From 24 March 1986 that number was reduced to five . Finally, when at the end of 1986 or the beginning of 1987 the building situated in the Square du Frère Orban was removed from the applicant' s charge, he submitted a complaint under Article 90 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations ( followed by an application to the Court, Case 280/87 ), in which he stated as follows :  "I wish to point out that this building was placed in my charge in the interests of the service on account of the difficult problems which it presented and my experience in this specialized area ( heating and sanitation )".  17 . Mr Hecq therefore himself considered that his new duties entailed fairly weighty responsibilities, entrusted to him in the interests of the service, and that he was able to look after several buildings on his own .  18 . Incidentally, it should finally be noted that if Mr Hecq had been a senior secretarial assistant in Grade B 3 or B 2 he would have been "engaged, within an administrative unit or group of officials, in carrying out difficult and complex secretarial work on the basis of general directives ". Responsibility for a section of an administrative unit is therefore a characteristic inherent not in Grade B 3/2 but in the post of a senior administrative assistant .  19 . The applicant also complains that in the description of his new duties his responsibility for studies carried out within the department was reduced since the 1984 vacancy notice referred to "advising and preparing requests for tenders ...", whereas the description of his new duties mentions "participating in studies carried out within the department, in drawing up files for consulting undertakings and analysing tenders received and drafting contracts ".  20 . It is clear from a reading of the description of the various basic posts that it is the head of division who is responsible for advice or supervision under the authority of a director-general or director .  21 . It is therefore difficult to accept that the applicant had previously, as he states in page 11 of his reply, "taken sole charge of conceptual and administrative planning duties concerning requests for tenders ...".  22 . The expression previously used, "advising and preparing requests for tenders", infers rather that even then the applicant was required to advise on a problem, prepare a request for tenders and submit it for approval or amendment to his superiors, who were responsible for taking the final decision . In other words even before his duties were to advise on and draw up files .  23 . As regards that part of the new description of the applicant' s duties which requires him to supervise "the carrying out of contracts concluded with outside firms for the maintenance and improvement of buildings and the technical installations therein", it must be confirmed that this corresponds exactly to the definition which appeared in the previous description, which referred to "supervising work carried out by firms responsible for operating and maintaining technical and heating installations ... and supervising the carrying out of work on heating and sanitary installations ".  24 . The fact that an official in a lower grade ( namely D 3 ) was also required inter alia to undertake such supervision seems inevitable in a department which is responsible not for itself carrying out maintenance or improvement work but for supervising work carried out by private firms .  25 . ( b ) In the framework of this second submission the applicant also claims the breach of the principle of equal treatment .  26 . He claims that the Commission "treated him less favourably than his former colleagues, since it required him :  to work alone and not as part of a team;  to work exclusively in the new buildings, which is much more complicated because equipment has to be put in running order;  to work in two sectors at the same time ( namely heating and sanitation ), whereas his colleagues work in one or other of those sectors ".  27 . It is difficult to understand the applicant' s reasoning in this regard since under this head he is in fact asking to be treated in the same way as officials in a grade lower than his own ( namely two B 4s, one D 1 and three D 3s ). It is certain that equal treatment must be assessed by reference to the responsibilities of officials in the same grade . The fact that Mr Hecq is required to take sole charge of new buildings in two sectors, heating and sanitation, in my view shows that the Commission took care, on the contrary, to assign him duties of some importance and some complexity, in keeping with his experience, which could not have been given to officials in a lower grade . Moreover, that was acknowledged by the applicant himself in his complaint concerning the building in the Square du Frère Orban to which I have already referred .  28 . I must therefore conclude that the complaint based on the breach of the principle of equal treatment is also unfounded .  II - Breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and the principle of good administration  The applicant considers that the contested measures seriously affect his material and non-material interests because they were adopted :  without containing any extrinsic grounds;  without first enabling him to put his point of view;  without taking his interests into account .  ( a ) Complaint based on the absence of a statement of grounds  30 . The applicant complains that the decision adopted relating to him did not satisfy the requirement of a statement of grounds laid down in the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations .  31 . The Court has recognized in its judgments that, since the purpose of the duty to state the grounds on which a decision is based is both to permit the person concerned to determine whether the decision is defective, making it possible for its legality to be challenged, and to enable it to be reviewed by the Court, it follows that the extent of that obligation must be determined on the basis of the particular facts of each case . ( 10 ) The Court has also held that "in order to decide whether the requirements of Article 25 relating to a statement of reasons were fulfilled consideration should be given not only to the transfer decision itself but also to the staff memoranda in support thereof which were brought to the notice of the person concerned and which clearly informed him of the reasons behind the said decision ". ( 11 )  32 . In this case the formal decision to change the applicant' s posting was preceded by the memorandum dated 3 January 1986 from the Director for Administration, which was addressed to the head of department concerned and a copy of which was sent to the applicant . In that memorandum the Director noted that time was being wasted through the exchange of memoranda within the Buildings Sector of IX.B.5 and expressed the desire that the energies and qualities of the officials concerned should instead be devoted to their duties within the department; he stated that the best way of achieving that aim was to remove the applicant from the Buildings Sector and give him the duties to which I have referred . The applicant was therefore informed by that memorandum of the reasons for which he was about to be reassigned . Furthermore, it is clear from the documents contained in the file, and in particular those produced at the Court' s request, that the applicant was in fact the author of a large number of the memoranda expressing the persistent disagreements which impeded the proper functioning of the service .  33 . It was therefore possible for the applicant to find in the very first of the contested measures, namely the decision taken in principle on 3 January 1986, the factors which guided the administration in taking its decision, factors of which he could not have been unaware . ( 12 )  34 . The complaint that no grounds were stated for the decision must therefore be rejected .  ( b ) The complaint that there was no prior consultation  35 . It may be regarded as established that the applicant' s comments were not heard either before the decision was taken in principle on 3 January 1986 or before the formal decision of 23 January 1986 by which he was reassigned .  36 . The Director for Administration, Mr Pratley, in his memorandum dated 3 January 1986 addressed to Mr de Hoe, Head of the Buildings and Equipment Management Department stated as follows : "I am of course prepared to see both Mr Brusset and Mr Hecq at the appropriate time, but at present I consider that I have all the information necessary to take a decision ". It has not been alleged, however, that Mr Hecq insisted on an immediate interview and that his request was refused . It may also be thought that Mr Hecq' s point of view on the subject-matter of the dispute was well known to the director since a meeting had taken place in July 1985 and all of the memoranda sent by Mr Hecq to Mr Brusset had been transmitted by the latter to Mr Pratley .  37 . However, the fact remains that Mr Hecq was not given an opportunity of putting forward his views in person on the projected reassignment . The Court stessed in its judgment in Arning ( 13 ) that :  "It is in accordance with the requirements of good faith and mutual confidence, which should characterize the relationship between officials and the administration, that the latter should, as far as possible, put the official in a position to make his point of view on the projected decision known . Such a practice is also likely to prevent legal disputes ."  38 . It is therefore regrettable that Mr Hecq' s observations were not heard . It remains to be decided whether any obligation was breached in this case . On reflection I consider that in the circumstances of the case it was not . In its judgments in Kuhner ( 14 ) and Arning the Court held that the administration is bound to give officials an opportunity of making known their point of view only in the case of measures which cause serious detriment to the official concerned . In other cases, in the absence of an express requirement in the Staff Regulations, no such obligation exists and the formalities prescribed by Article 90 of the Staff Regulations for the protection of the interests of officials must be regarded as adequate, subject to any review by the Court .  39 . In those two judgments the applicants complained that they had been relieved of their functions as head of division and head of a specialized service ( 15 ) and given specific duties under a director or within a different specialized department . The Court held that these decisions could not be regarded as causing serious detriment to the officials concerned .  40 . As it has been established that Mr Hecq' s reassignment did not affect either his grade or the responsibilities attaching to his basic post, it may also be concluded that it did not cause him serious detriment and it was therefore not necessary in law to give him an opportunity of putting forward his views .  ( c ) Complaint that the applicant' s interests were not taken into account  41 . The applicant also refers to the judgments in which the Court has held that the administration' s duty to have regard to the interests of its staff "reflects the balance of the reciprocal rights and obligations established by the Staff Regulations in the relationship between the official authority and the civil servants . A particular consequence of that duty and of the principle of good administration is that when the authority takes a decision concerning the situation of an official it should take into consideration all the factors which may affect its decision and that when doing so it should take into account not only the interests of the service but also those of the official concerned ". ( 16 )  42 . It would appear that Mr Hecq considers that in order to take into account his personal interests, the Commission ought not to have changed his posting .  43 . There is no doubt, however, that if the status quo had been maintained the disputes and tensions within the administrative unit would have continued, with all the adverse effects that that would have had on the department . The personal interest of an official and the interests of the service were therefore in this case clearly irreconcilable .  44 . In its judgments in Arning and Delauche, ( 17 ) the Court clearly stated that the requirements of the duty to have regard to the interests of officials "cannot prevent the authority from undertaking a rationalization of departments if it believes that this is necessary ". The Court has also consistently held that it cannot substitute its assessment of the interests of the service for that of the appointing authority, but its review must be limited to consideration of the question whether, having regard to the considerations which have influenced the administration in making its assessment, the latter has remained within reasonable bounds and has not used its power in a manifestly incorrect way . ( 18 ) As regards disagreements between officials in particular, the Court has held that once it becomes clearly impossible to smooth out the differences which have arisen between an official and his superior, the institution is entitled to take any appropriate steps in order to restore a peaceable atmosphere in the department in question . ( 19 )  45 . As in this case there were differences between the applicant and his superior and between him and his colleagues ( indeed, the Commission has placed before the Court a request for transfer made by one of his colleagues ), the decision taken by the director responsible to reassign the applicant may be regarded as "a reasonable reaction to the situation resulting from the deterioration of working relationships" ( 20 ) in the department in question .  44 . Therefore none of the arguments put forward in support of the second submission may be upheld .  III - Submission based on the infringement of Article 87 of the Staff Regulations and misuse of powers  47 . Lastly, Mr Hecq claims that he was "subject to a disguised disciplinary measure, in so far as his duties were reduced and also the remuneration which he actually received as a result of an allowance for stand-by duty at the place of work was reduced, on the ground that he was a union representative ". There was therefore an infringement of Article 87 of the Staff Regulations which lays down the principle that the most serious disciplinary measures, such as downgrading, may be ordered only in accordance with the disciplinary procedure provided for in Annex IX to the Staff Regulations .  48 . In the reply Mr Hecq relies in support of his allegations on a number of facts which occurred after his reassignment and which therefore cannot have constituted the reason for his reassignment .  49 . Furthermore, I have already reached the conclusion that the applicant' s duties were not in fact reduced, so that there can be no question of a disguised downgrading . I have also taken the view that there was a proper statement of grounds for the decision, regard being had to the exchange of memoranda between Mr Hecq and Mr Brusset, which constitutes tangible evidence of the quarrelling noted by the Commission .  50 . As regards the complaint that the remuneration actually received by the applicant was reduced owing to the loss of the stand-by allowance, it does not seem to me to be founded in law . Although the Staff Regulations are intended to guarantee to an official the grade he has attained and a post corresponding to that grade, they give him no right to any particular post; on the contrary, they leave to the appointing authority the power to assign officials in the interests of the service to the various posts corresponding to their grade . ( 21 ) An official therefore has no right to occupy a post in which the holder is regularly put on stand-by duty allowance at the place of work or at his home outside normal working hours and is therefore paid an allowance . The Commission rightly points out that the stand-by duty allowance is not part of the salary carried by an official' s grade and step, but is solely intended to compensate the official for being required to remain at the institution' s disposal, and if this duty no longer exists the compensatory allowance is no longer justified . This submission is therefore also unfounded .  51 . That leaves the complaint of misuse of powers . As the Court has repeatedly decided, a decision may amount to a misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent facts, to have been taken for purposes other than those stated . ( 22 )  52 . It is in the reply that the applicant states, for the first time, that he was penalized because he was engaged in union activities . There are two possiblities . Either the Commission is wont to "punish" those of its officials who engage in union activities, and in that case the applicant would have no difficulty in adducing evidence of such conduct on the part of the institution, which he has not done . Or Mr Hecq has attracted attention by engaging personally in actions that are in themselves normal for trade unionists but have especially displeased his institution, which has therefore decided to penalize him individually . However, the applicant has not attempted to prove the existence of such actions, let alone the existence of a causal link between them and his reassignment . Under those circumstances, the submission of misuse of powers cannot be regarded as well founded .  53 . Since it seems to me that none of the applicant' s submissions may be upheld, I am bound to propose that the Court should dismiss the application in its entirety .  IV - Costs  54 . The Commission contends that the application is reckless and vexatious within the meaning of Article 69 ( 3 ) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court and the applicant should therefore be ordered to pay the costs .  55 . In that regard, however, account should in my view be taken of the following factors :  The application is not manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded; ( 23 )  The applicant has not made excessive charges in pursuing his case; ( 24 )  The application is not manifestly intended to delay matters; ( 25 )  The applicant was not able to have the contested measure reviewed by the Commission before he initiated legal proceedings or in the course of those proceedings; ( 26 )  In the reassignment decision and the related memoranda the administration of the Commission has not determined the extent to which the various protagonists were responsible for creating and exacerbating tensions;  The applicant did not have an opportunity of putting his point of view concerning the projected measure relating to him, which would have been preferable even though it was not legally required .  56 . Under those circumstances this action cannot in my view be considered manifestly abusive .  57 . Consequently, I propose that the Court should apply Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure and order the parties to pay their own costs .  (*) Translated from the French .  ( 1 ) Judgment of 16 June 1971 in Case 61/70 G . Vistosi v Commission (( 1971 )) ECR 535, paragraph 14; see also judgment of 21 June 1984 in Case 69/83 C . Lux v Court of Auditors (( 1984 )) ECR 2447, paragraph 17 .  ( 2 ) See judgment of 16 June 1971 G . Vistosi v Commission, cited above, paragraph 15; see also judgment of 15 December 1965 in Case 15/76 W . Klaer v High Authority of the ECSC (( 1965 )) ECR 1045, especially p . 1054, sixth paragraph; and judgment of 23 January 1986 in Case 173/84 L . Rasmussen v Commission (( 1986 )) ECR 197, paragraph 24 .  ( 3 ) See judgment of 16 June 1971 G . Vistosi v Commission, cited above, paragraph 16 .  ( 4 ) See in this regard, concerning the post of a director-general in Grade A 1, judgment of 28 May 1970 in Case 36/69 F . Peco v Commission (( 1970 )) ECR 361, paragraph 15, and concerning the posts of a director and a chief adviser, judgment of 13 May 1970 in Case 46/69 A . Reinarz v Commission (( 1970 )) ECR 275, paragraph 10 .  ( 5 ) See in this regard judgment of 20 May 1976 in Case 66/75 M . Macevicius v European Parliament (( 1976 )) ECR 593, paragraph 16 .  ( 6 ) Subsequently amended and published in a coordinated version in Staff Notices 1 A No 373 of 9 July 1982 .  ( 7 ) Judgment of 28 March 1968 in Case 33/67 D . Kurrer v Council (( 1968 )) ECR 127, especially p . 135 .  ( 8 ) Judgment of 20 May 1980 in Joined Cases 33 and 75/79 R . Kuhner v Commission (( 1980 )) ECR 1677, at p . 1697, paragraph 20 .  ( 9 ) Emphasis added .  ( 10 ) Judgment of 14 July 1983 in Case 176/82 T . Nebe v Commission (( 1983 )) ECR 2475, paragraph 21; similarly, judgment of 21 June 1984 C . Lux v Court of Auditors, cited above, paragraph 36 .  ( 11 ) Judgment of 12 October 1978 in Case 86/77 K . Ditterich v Commission (( 1978 )) ECR 1855, paragraph 40; similarly judgment of 14 July 1977 in Case 61/76 J.-J . Geist v Commission (( 1977 )) ECR 1419, paragraph 23; see also judgment of 14 July 1983 T . Nebe v Commission, cited above, paragraph 21; and judgments of 29 October 1981 in Case 125/80 G . Arning v Commission (( 1981 )) ECR 2539, paragraph 13, and of 28 May 1980 R . Kuhner v Commission, cited above, paragraph , second sentence .  ( 12 ) Judgment of 12 October 1978 K . Ditterich v Commission, cited above, paragraph 42; judgment of 14 July 1977 J.-J . Geist v Commission, cited above, paragraph 26 .  ( 13 ) Judgment of 29 October 1981 G . Arning v Commission, cited above, p . 2554, paragraph 17 .  ( 14 ) Judgment of 20 May 1980 R . Kuhner v Commission, cited above, p . 1698, paragraph 25 .  ( 15 ) A specialized department is virtually the same as a division except that it is headed by an A 4 instead of an A 3 .  ( 16 ) Judgment of 4 February 1987 in Case 417/85 H . Maurissen v Court of Auditors (( 1987 )) ECR 551, paragraph 12; in this regard, see judgment of 28 May 1980 R . Kuhner v Commission, cited above, paragraph 22 .  ( 17 ) Judgment of 16 December 1987 in Case 111/86 E . Delauche v Commission (( 1987 )) ECR , paragraph 26 .  ( 18 ) See judgment of 12 February 1987 in Case 233/85 A . Bonino v Commission (( 1987 )) ECR 739, paragraph 5 .  ( 19 ) See in this regard judgment of 12 July 1979 in Case 124/78 H . List v Commission (( 1979 )) ECR 2499, paragraph 13; also judgment of 11 July 1968 in Case 16/67 H . Labeyrie v Commission (( 1968 )) ECR 293, especially p . 302 ( a ) first and second sentences; judgment of 14 June 1979 in Case 18/78 Mrs V . v Commission (( 1978 )) ECR 2093, paragraph 18 .  ( 20 ) See judgment in H . List v Commission, cited above .  ( 21 ) See judgment of 6 May 1969 in Case 21/68 A . Huybrechts v Commission (( 1969 )) ECR 85, paragraph 8; and judgment of 13 May 1970 in Case 46/69 A . Reinarz v Commission (( 1970 )) ECR 275, paragraph 5 .  ( 22 ) See for example judgment of 21 June 1984 C.Lux v Court of Auditors, cited above, paragraph 30; similarly, judgment of 18 June 1987 in Case 307/85 A . Gavanas v Economic and Social Committee of the EEC (( 1987 )) ECR 2435, paragraph 37 .  ( 23 ) As regards applications that are manifestly unfounded see for example judgment of 10 January 1980 in Case 116/78 R A . Bellintani and Others v Commission (( 1980 )) ECR 23; Order of 11 December 1986 in Case 25/86 B . Suss v Commission (( 1986 )) ECR 3929; as regards applications that are manifestly inadmissible, see for example judgment of 17 March 1983 in Case 252/81 M . Macevicius v European Parliament (( 1983 )) ECR 867; also judgment of 6 October 1983 in Joined Cases 118 to 123/82 M . G . Celant v Commission (( 1983 )) ECR 95; judgment of 12 July 1984 in Case 227/83 S . Moussis v Commission (( 1984 )) ECR 3133; judgment of 21 January 1987 in Case 204/85 V . Stroghili v Court of Auditors (( 1987 )) ECR 389 .  ( 24 ) The applicant is ordered to pay the costs if in pursuing his case he makes excessive charges - see in this connection judgment of 1 June 1983 in Joined Cases 36, 37 and 218/81 (( 1983 )) ECR 1789, paragraph 59, or if he makes injurious allegations not withdrawn until the hearing, see in this regard for example judgment of 17 May 1984 in Case 338/82 C . Albertini and M . Montagnani v Commission (( 1984 )) ECR 2123 .  ( 25 ) See for example Orders of 9 June 1980 in Cases 123/80 R and 123/80 C . A . A . Broekhuyse v Parliament (( 1980 )) ECR 1793 and 1789, and judgment of 15 January 1981 in Case 731/79 B . v European Parliament (( 1981 )) ECR 107 .  ( 26 ) Judgment of 3 July 1980 in Joined Cases 6 and 97/79 D . Grassi v Council (( 1980 )) ECR 2141; judgment of 19 February 1981 in Joined Cases 122 and 123/79 M . Schiavo v Council (( 1981 )) ECR 473 .