1 BY APPLICATIONS LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 10 APRIL 1981 , MR ADAM , MR DE BLUST , MR DE WINDT AND MR GODAERT , SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL OFFICERS IN CATEGORY B AT THE JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE , ISPRA , BROUGHT ACTIONS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION NOTIFIED TO THEM BY LETTER OF 9 JUNE 1980 FROM THE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION BY WHICH THE AD HOC COMMITTEE CHARGED WITH ASSESSING THE ABILITY OF CATEGORY B OFFICIALS IN THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES TO PERFORM CATEGORY A DUTIES REFUSED TO PLACE THEM ON THE LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES TO BE DRAWN UP FOR THAT PURPOSE .
2 BY APPLICATIONS LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 23 JULY 1982 , MR ADAM , MR DE BLUST , MR DE WINDT AND MR GODAERT ALSO BROUGHT ACTIONS FOR : THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION CONTAINED IN THE LETTER OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1981 BY WHICH THE COMMISSION ADOPTED THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON 30 JULY 1981 TO INCLUDE THE APPLICANTS ON THE LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES BUT WITHOUT DEFINING THEIR FIELDS OF COMPETENCE AND WITHOUT PLACING THEM IN ONE OF THE ' ' PRIORITY ' ' GROUPS ESTABLISHED FOR THE OTHER OFFICIALS ELIGIBLE FOR THE CHANGE OF CATEGORY ; THE ANNULMENT OF ALL PROMOTIONS FROM CATEGORY B TO CATEGORY A GRANTED TO OFFICIALS IN THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES OF THE JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE AT ISPRA SINCE 10 JUNE 1980 .
3 ON 9 JUNE 1980 MR ADAM , MR DE BLUST , MR DE WINDT AND MR GODAERT WERE INFORMED BY THE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION THAT , AFTER EXAMINING THE MERITS OF EACH CANDIDATE , THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ' ' HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO INCLUDE THEIR NAMES ON THE LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES ' ' . THE AD HOC COMMITTEE WAS FORMED UNDER THE ' ' PROCEDURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO DECISIONS ON THE TRANSFER FROM CATEGORY B TO CATEGORY A OF OFFICIALS IN THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES ' ' ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' ' THE PROCEDURAL ARRANGEMENTS ' ' ), APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION ON 17 NOVEMBER 1978 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 98 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ( ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICES NO 220 OF 20 . 12 . 1978 ).
4 FOLLOWING THE IMPLIED DECISION REJECTING THE COMPLAINTS WHICH THEY HAD LODGED ON 8 SEPTEMBER 1980 AGAINST THE DECISION OF 9 JUNE 1980 , THE APPLICANTS BROUGHT ACTIONS FOR ANNULMENT WHICH WERE REGISTERED UNDER NUMBERS 80 TO 83/81 .
5 HOWEVER , BY LETTERS DATED 17 MARCH AND 28 APRIL 1981 , THE MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION RESPONSIBLE FOR STAFF MATTERS INFORMED THE APPLICANTS THAT THEIR CASES , LIKE THOSE OF OTHER OFFICIALS ALSO CONCERNED BY THE MEASURE IN QUESTION , WOULD BE REFERRED TO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR RECONSIDERATION .
6 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LETTER WHICH THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION WROTE TO THE APPLICANTS ON 24 SEPTEMBER 1981 THAT , ALTHOUGH THE AD HOC COMMITTEE FOUND AT ITS MEETING ON 30 JULY 1981 THAT THEY WERE ELIGIBLE FOR A CHANGE OF CATEGORY , IT ALSO STATED THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE THE FIELDS OF COMPETENCE IN WHICH THEY COULD ' ' CURRENTLY PERFORM SCIENTIFIC OR TECHNICAL DUTIES IN CATEGORY A AT THE LEVEL OF COMPETENCE REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION SERVICES ' ' . THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ' S DECISION WAS PUBLISHED AS AN ADDENDUM TO THE ORIGINAL LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES IN ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICES NO 339 OF 16 OCTOBER 1981 .
7 ON 17 DECEMBER 1981 , THE APPLICANTS LODGED A COMPLAINT AGAINST THAT DECISION , CONTENDING THAT , SINCE THE AD HOC COMMITTEE HAD FOUND THEM SUITABLE FOR A CHANGE OF CATEGORY , THE COMMITTEE , OR IF NOT THE COMMITTEE , THE COMMISSION , OUGHT TO HAVE STATED THEIR FIELDS OF COMPETENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE PROCEDURAL ARRANGEMENTS AND SECONDLY THAT THE PRINCIPLE THAT ALL THE OFFICIALS FOUND SUITABLE FOR A CHANGE OF CATEGORY SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY REQUIRED THAT THE APPLICANTS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN ONE OF THE ' ' PRIORITY ' ' GROUPS APPEARING IN THE ORIGINAL LIST PUBLISHED IN JUNE 1980 . THAT COMPLAINT REMAINED UNANSWERED BY THE COMMISSION . THE ACTIONS BROUGHT IN CASES 80 TO 83/81 AGAINST THE DECISION CONTAINED IN THE LETTER OF 9 JUNE 1980
8 IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT , AFTER THESE ACTIONS HAD BEEN BROUGHT , THE CONTESTED DECISION WAS WITHDRAWN AT THE COMMISSION ' S REQUEST AND REPLACED BY THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ' S DECISION NOTIFIED TO THE APPLICANTS ON 24 SEPTEMBER 1981 .
9 THESE ACTIONS HAVE THEREFORE BECOME PURPOSELESS AND IT IS NO LONGER NECESSARY TO GIVE JUDGMENT ON THEM .
10 ARTICLE 69 ( 5 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT , WHERE A CASE DOES NOT PROCEED TO JUDGMENT , COSTS ARE IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT .
11 SINCE THESE ACTIONS RESULTED FROM ERRORS MADE BY THE AD HOC COMMITTEE , WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS ACKNOWLEDGED , THE COMMISSION MUST PAY THE COSTS OF CASES 80 TO 83/81 . CASE 183/82
12 BY LETTER DATED 23 MAY 1984 LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 25 MAY 1984 , MR DE BLUST NOTIFIED THE COURT THAT HE WAS WITHDRAWING THIS ACTION AND REQUESTED IT TO ORDER THE COMMISSION TO PAY THE COSTS OF THIS CASE .
13 THE COURT MUST THEREFORE ORDER CASE 183/82 TO BE REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER .
14 ARTICLE 69 ( 4 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT A PARTY WHO DISCONTINUES OR WITHDRAWS FROM PROCEEDINGS MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS , UNLESS THE DISCONTINUANCE OR WITHDRAWAL IS JUSTIFIED BY THE CONDUCT OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY .
15 MR DE BLUST WITHDREW HIS ACTION AFTER BEING PROMOTED TO CATEGORY A BY VIRTUE OF A DECISION ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION ON 1 JANUARY 1984 ; THIS SATISFIED HIS WISHES AND BROUGHT THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO AN END .
16 THE COMMISSION MUST THEREFORE BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS OF CASE 183/82 . CASES 182 , 184 AND 185/82 THE CLAIM THAT THE DECISION CONTAINED IN THE LETTER OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1981 SHOULD BE ANNULLED
17 IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM THE APPLICANTS MAKE TWO SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE IN ESSENCE THAT : THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY AND THE AD HOC COMMITTEE INFRINGED SECTION III ( 2 ) OF THE PROCEDURAL ARRANGEMENTS BY FAILING TO STATE THE FIELDS OF COMPETENCE IN WHICH THE APPLICANTS WERE CONSIDERED CAPABLE OF PERFORMING CATEGORY A DUTIES ; IN DISREGARD OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY AND THE AD HOC COMMITTEE FAILED TO CLASSIFY THE APPLICANTS IN ONE OF THE TWO ' ' PRIORITY ' ' GROUPS FORMING THE ORIGINAL LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES . THE SUBMISSION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE PROCEDURAL ARRANGEMENTS WERE INFRINGED
18 IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT FIRST OF ALL THAT SECTION III OF THE PROCEDURAL ARRANGEMENTS REQUIRES THE AD HOC COMMITTEE , WHOSE MEMBERS ARE NOMINATED BY THE COMMISSION , TO CONSIDER CANDIDATES ' APPLICATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN SECTION III ( 2 ) ( A ) TO ( D ). THE PROCEDURE CONSISTS IN THE EXAMINATION OF A CANDIDATE ' S APPLICATION , SUPPLEMENTED , WHERE APPROPRIATE , BY AN INTERVIEW WITH THE CANDIDATE , AND THE ASSESSMENT OF A WRITTEN DISSERTATION ON A SCIENTIFIC OR TECHNICAL SUBJECT CHOSEN BY THE COMMITTEE FOR THOSE CANDIDATES WHO DO NOT HAVE A DEGREE IN THAT SUBJECT FROM A UNIVERSITY OR COMPARABLE SCIENTIFIC OR TECHNICAL ESTABLISHMENT . CANDIDATES HAVING SUCH A DEGREE ARE AUTOMATICALLY ELIGIBLE FOR A CHANGE OF CATEGORY , FOLLOWING VERIFICATION OF THEIR DEGREES AND AN INTERVIEW WITH THE COMMITTEE TO ASSESS THEIR FIELDS OF COMPETENCE .
19 SECTION III ( 2 ) ( E ) OF THE PROCEDURAL ARRANGEMENTS PROVIDES THAT : ' ' FOLLOWING ITS DELIBERATIONS , THE COMMITTEE WILL SUBMIT A REASONED REPORT TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WITH A LIST OF CANDIDATES CONSIDERED CAPABLE OF PERFORMING CATEGORY A DUTIES . THE REPORT WILL INDICATE THE AREAS IN WHICH EACH CANDIDATE IS REGARDED AS BEING COMPETENT . A TRANSFER DECISION WILL THEN BE TAKEN BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IN THE LIGHT OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS AND THE BUDGETARY SITUATION . ' '
20 THE COMMISSION ARGUES IN ESSENCE THAT THE AD HOC COMMITTEE WAS UNABLE TO STATE THE APPLICANTS ' FIELD OR FIELDS OF COMPETENCE AND THAT IN ANY EVENT THIS WAS NOT A PRE-CONDITION FOR DECIDING A PROMOTION , SINCE SUCH A DECISION IS TAKEN BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ON THE BASIS OF THE OTHER CRITERIA MENTIONED ABOVE AND , WHERE APPROPRIATE , ON THE BASIS OF THE CANDIDATE ' S PERSONAL FILE .
21 IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT , ALTHOUGH THE AD HOC COMMITTEE HAS A DISCRETION UNDER THE PROCEDURAL ARRANGEMENTS TO DECIDE THE FIELD OF COMPETENCE INTO WHICH EACH CANDIDATE FOR A CHANGE OF CATEGORY MUST BE CLASSIFIED , THE EXERCISE OF THAT DISCRETION MUST , ACCORDING TO SECTION III ( 2 ) ( E ) OF THE PROCEDURAL ARRANGEMENTS , LEAD TO THE DEFINITION OF ONE OR MORE FIELDS OF COMPETENCE FOR EACH CANDIDATE . IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT IN THIS INSTANCE THE AD HOC COMMITTEE DID NOT OBSERVE THOSE PROVISIONS .
22 SECONDLY , ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT INTERNAL DIRECTIVES OR MEASURES OF AN INTERNAL NATURE SUCH AS THE PROCEDURAL ARRANGEMENTS LAID DOWN BY THE COMMISSION MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS RULES OF LAW WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION IS ALWAYS BOUND TO OBSERVE , THEY NEVERTHELESS FORM RULES OF PRACTICE FROM WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION MAY NOT DEPART WITHOUT GIVING THE REASONS WHICH LED IT TO DO SO , SINCE OTHERWISE THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF TREATMENT WOULD BE INFRINGED .
23 AT THE HEARING THE COMMISSION WAS UNABLE TO STATE THE REASON FOR WHICH IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE APPLICANTS ' FIELDS OF COMPETENCE , IN CONTRAST TO ITS TREATMENT OF ALL THE OFFICIALS ON THE ORIGINAL LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES .
24 CONSEQUENTLY , THE SUBMISSION THAT THE PROCEDURAL ARRANGEMENTS WERE INFRINGED MUST BE UPHELD AS WELL FOUNDED . THE SUBMISSION ALLEGING A BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT
25 IN THE APPLICANTS ' VIEW , THE PRINCIPLE THAT OFFICIALS CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE FOR A CHANGE OF CATEGORY MUST BE TREATED EQUALLY WAS DISREGARDED IN SO FAR AS THE ORIGINAL LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES , PUBLISHED IN JUNE 1980 , AND THE SUPPLEMENTARY LIST CONTAINED IN THE ' ' ADDENDUM ' ' PUBLISHED IN OCTOBER 1981 , WERE NOT DRAWN UP IN THE SAME WAY .
26 INDEED , IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT THAT ALL THE OFFICIALS ON THE ORIGINAL LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES WERE DIVIDED INTO TWO GROUPS , THE FIRST , DESCRIBED AS ' ' 1ST PRIORITY ' ' , CONTAINING THE NAMES OF THE OFFICIALS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER AND THE SECOND , DESCRIBED AS ' ' 2ND PRIORITY ' ' , CONTAINING THE NAMES IN DESCENDING ORDER OF MERIT . HOWEVER , THE OFFICIALS WHOSE NAMES WERE SUBSEQUENTLY PLACED ON THE LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES AND WHO INCLUDED THE APPLICANTS WERE LISTED IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ADDENDUM WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO ONE OF THE TWO GROUPS IN THE ORIGINAL LIST , INTO WHICH THEY WERE TO BE INCORPORATED .
27 THE COMMISSION CONTENDS THAT , SINCE THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS DO NOT PROVIDE FOR THE SELECTED CANDIDATES TO BE CLASSIFIED INTO SEVERAL GROUPS , THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY CANNOT BE BOUND TO MAKE SUCH FINDINGS . THE COMMISSION FURTHER POINTS OUT THAT THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANTS ' NAMES WERE ADDED TO THE ORIGINAL LIST BY MEANS OF AN ADDENDUM COULD NOT HAVE PREJUDICED THEIR POSITION SINCE TWO OFFICIALS FIGURING IN THE RELEVANT ADDENDUM HAVE IN FACT BEEN PROMOTED TO CATEGORY A .
28 LEAVING ASIDE THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND THE COMMISSION HAD TO CLASSIFY CANDIDATES INTO ' ' PRIORITY ' ' GROUPS ON THE ORIGINAL LIST , THE COURT IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE COMMITTEE , AND IN ANY EVENT THE COMMISSION , WERE UNDER A DUTY TO ENSURE THAT ALL THE OFFICIALS CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE FOR A CHANGE OF CATEGORY WERE TREATED EQUALLY .
29 ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT THE INCLUSION OF AN OFFICIAL ' S NAME ON THE LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY GIVE HIM A RIGHT TO BE PROMOTED TO CATEGORY A AND THAT IN THIS REGARD THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ENJOYS A WIDE DISCRETION TO DECIDE WHICH OF THE CANDIDATES ON THE LIST ARE TO BE PROMOTED , THAT DISCRETION MUST BE EXERCISED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ENSURE THAT A SCRUPULOUS EXAMINATION OF THE CANDIDATES ' MERITS IS CARRIED OUT IN THE LIGHT OF COMPARABLE SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND OF DATA OBTAINED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY .
30 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT THAT IN THE APPLICANTS ' CASE THAT REQUIREMENT WAS NOT OBSERVED . BY NOT PLACING THEM IN ONE OF THE ' ' PRIORITY ' ' GROUPS IN THE ORIGINAL LIST THE COMMISSION HAS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEIR MERITS TO BE COMPARED WITH THOSE OF THE CANDIDATES ON THE ORIGINAL LIST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT . THE SUBMISSION ALLEGING A BREACH OF THAT PRINCIPLE MUST THEREFORE BE ACCEPTED AS WELL FOUNDED .
31 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE EXAMINATION OF THE TWO SUBMISSIONS ON WHICH THE CLAIMS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION CONTAINED IN THE LETTER OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1981 ARE BASED THAT THE DECISION MUST BE ANNULLED IN SO FAR AS THE APPLICANTS ' FIELDS OF COMPETENCE AND THEIR RANKING IN RELATION TO THAT OF THE OTHER OFFICIALS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES WERE NOT STATED . THE CLAIMS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE PROMOTIONS GRANTED SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF THE ORIGINAL LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES ON 10 JUNE 1980
32 THE APPLICANTS CONTEND THAT ONLY THE ANNULMENT OF ALL THE PROMOTIONS GRANTED SINCE 10 JUNE 1980 CAN PUT AN END TO THE DISCRIMINATION WHICH THEY HAVE SUFFERED .
33 HOWEVER , THE APPLICANTS ' RIGHTS WILL BE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED IF THE COMMISSION RECONSIDERS ITS DECISION . CONSEQUENTLY , THERE IS NO REASON TO INQUIRE INTO ALL THE DECISIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND TO ANNUL THE PROMOTIONS GRANTED PURSUANT TO THEM .
34 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE AFOREGOING THAT THE CLAIMS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF ALL THE PROMOTIONS GRANTED SINCE 10 JUNE 1980 MUST BE DISMISSED .