1 BY AN APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 18 MAY 1984 , CALVIN WILLIAMS , AN OFFICIAL OF THE COURT OF AUDITORS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , BROUGHT AN ACTION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF AUDITORS OF 10 NOVEMBER 1983 IMPLEMENTING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF 6 OCTOBER 1982 ( CASE 9/81 WILLIAMS V COURT OF AUDITORS ( 1982 ) ECR 3301 ) AND RECLASSIFYING HIM IN A STEP WHICH HE DOES NOT CONSIDER HIGH ENOUGH .
2 THE JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1982 CONCERNED A DISPUTE WHICH HAD ITS ORIGIN IN THE PUBLICATION BY THE COURT OF AUDITORS OF A ' GENERAL DECISION ' 21 FEBRUARY 1980 RELATING TO THE CRITERIA FOR THE APPOINTMENT AND CLASSIFICATION OF STAFF . IN THE COURSE OF 1980 , THE COURT OF AUDITORS RECRUITED OFFICIALS AND OTHER STAFF WHO WERE NOT ALREADY IN THE SERVICE OF THE COMMUNITIES . THOSE PERSONS WERE CLASSIFIED , WITH EFFECT FROM 21 FEBRUARY 1980 , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW CRITERIA LAID DOWN BY THE AFORESAID DECISION , WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF AN INTERNAL DIRECTIVE .
3 ARTICLE 3 OF THAT DECISION IS ENTITLED ' ADDITIONAL SENIORITY ALLOWANCE ' AND READS AS FOLLOWS : ' IN CONSIDERATION OF A CANDIDATE ' S PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE WHICH EXCEEDS THE LENGTH OF THAT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR DETERMINING HIS GRADE OF APPOINTMENT , THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY SHALL ALLOW ADDITIONAL SENIORITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANNEXED TABLE ' FOR GRADES A 5 TO A 7 , A MAXIMUM OF 48 MONTHS ). ARTICLE 4 , ENTITLED ' TEMPORARY STAFF APPOINTED AS OFFICIALS ' , PROVIDES THAT : ' A MEMBER OF THE TEMPORARY STAFF APPOINTED AS A PROBATIONER TO A POST IN THE SAME CAREER BRACKET AND PLACED IN THE SAME GRADE SHALL , ON THE DATE OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS A PROBATIONER , BE ENTITLED TO THE SENIORITY ACQUIRED SINCE HIS APPOINTMENT AS A MEMBER OF THE TEMPORARY STAFF . '
4 THE APPLICANT WAS RECRUITED AS A TEMPORARY SERVANT ON 1 OCTOBER 1974 BY THE AUDIT BOARD , WHICH WAS THEN PART OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES . HE WAS CLASSIFIED IN GRADE A 7 , STEP 2 . ON 1 OCTOBER 1976 , FOLLOWING HIS SUCCESSFUL PARTICIPATION IN A COMPETITION , THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNCIL APPOINTED HIM A PROBATIONARY OFFICIAL IN GRADE A 7 , STEP 3 . ON 14 JUNE 1977 HE WAS ESTABLISHED IN THAT GRADE . ON 1 MAY 1978 HE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT OF AUDITORS AT HIS OWN REQUEST , WITHOUT ANY CHANGE IN HIS GRADE AND STEP . LIKE ALL THE OTHER OFFICIALS TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT OF AUDITORS , THE APPLICANT WAS PROMOTED , IN HIS CASE WITH EFFECT FROM 1 MAY 1979 TO GRADE A 6,STEP 1 , HIS SENIORITY IN THAT STEP BEING ANTEDATED TO 1 JULY 1977 . HE THUS REACHED STEP 2 OF GRADE A 6 ON 1 JULY 1979 .
5 ACCORDING TO MR WILLIAMS , HOWEVER , THE APPLICATION OF THE CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA LAID DOWN BY THE GENERAL DECISION OF 21 FEBRUARY 1980 RESULTED IN DISCRIMINATION AGAINST EXISTING OFFICIALS TRANSFERRED , LIKE HIM , FROM THE AUDIT BOARD , AS COMPARED WITH NEWLY RECRUITED OFFICIALS AND OTHER SERVANTS .
6 IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY MR WILLIAMS REQUESTING THE COURT TO TERMINATE THAT INEQUALITY , THE COURT HELD IN THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1982 THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF TREATMENT AS BETWEEN OFFICIALS OF THE SAME CATEGORY , EXPRESSED IN ARTICLE 5 ( 3 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , ' THE DEFENDANT ' S DECISION REFUSING TO REVIEW THE APPLICANT ' S CLASSIFICATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ORDERED TO CLASSIFY THE APPLICANT IN THE APPROPRIATE STEP , TAKING ACCOUNT OF HIS EXPERIENCE AND POSSIBLY OF HIS QUALIFICATIONS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DECISION OF FEBRUARY 1980 , IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE DIFFERENCE IN CLASSIFICATION BETWEEN HIM AND OFFICIALS FROM OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY TO WHOM THE CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED DECISION HAVE BEEN APPLIED ' .
7 IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1982 , THE COURT ORDERED THE COURT OF AUDITORS TO CORRECT THE STEP ASSIGNED TO THE APPLICANT WITH EFFECT FROM 12 MAY 1980 ( THE DATE OF HIS COMPLAINT ) AND TO OBSERVE THE CRITERIA LAID DOWN IN ITS DECISION OF FEBRUARY 1980 .
8 IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THAT JUDGMENT THE COURT OF AUDITORS ADOPTED A DECISION DATED 10 NOVEMBER 1983 IN WHICH THE DETAILED STATEMENT OF REASONS LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 32 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , THE RECLASSIFICATION WHICH MUST BE CARRIED OUT SINCE IT WAS A CASE OF ' DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN A TRANSFERRED OFFICIAL AND A NEWLY RECRUITED OFFICIAL MUST RESULT IN THE GRANTING OF ADDITIONAL SENIORITY NOT EXCEEDING 48 MONTHS ' . ON THAT BASIS , SINCE ON 12 MAY 1980 THE APPLICANT WAS IN GRADE A 6 , STEP 2 , WITH SENIORITY IN STEP FROM 1 JULY 1979 , THE COURT OF AUDITORS CORRECTED HIS CLASSIFICATION WITH EFFECT FROM 12 MAY 1980 IN THE FOLLOWING WAY : HE WAS PLACED IN GRADE A 6 , STEP 3 , WITH EFFECT FROM 12 MAY 1980 ; AND IN GRADE A 6 , STEP 4 , WITH EFFECT FROM 12 MAY 1982 .
9 BY A COMPLAINT DATED 14 DECEMBER 1983 , THE APPLICANT CHALLENGED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE COURT OF AUDITORS HAD APPLIED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 6 OCTOBER 1982 . HE STATED THAT HE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN RECLASSIFIED WITH EFFECT FROM OCTOBER 1974 , THE DATE OF HIS RECRUITMENT AS A MEMBER OF THE TEMPORARY STAFF , WITH THE RESULT THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED ON 12 MAY 1980 TO GRADE A 6 , STEP 5 , WITH SENIORITY IN STEP FROM 16 DECEMBER 1978 .
10 MR WILLIAMS ' COMPLAINT WAS REJECTED BY A DECISION DATED 16 MARCH 1984 AND HE THEN BROUGHT THE PRESENT ACTION , CLAIMING THAT THE COURT SHOULD ANNUL THE DECISION OF 10 NOVEMBER 1983 RECLASSIFYING HIM AND THE DECISION OF 16 MARCH 1984 REJECTING HIS COMPLAINT .
11 INITIALLY , BOTH DURING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAGE AND DURING THE WRITTEN PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT , THE APPLICANT SOUGHT ADDITIONAL SENIORITY BY VIRTUE OF BOTH ARTICLE 3 AND ARTICLE 4 OF THE GENERAL DECISION OF 21 FEBRUARY 1980 .
12 HOWEVER , IN HIS MOST RECENT CONCLUSIONS , FORMULATED AT THE HEARING , THE APPLICANT STATED THAT HE WAS ABANDONING ANY CLAIM BASED ON ARTICLE 3 OF THE GENERAL DECISION AND WAS MERELY ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL STEP IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD BETWEEN 1974 AND 1976 , WHEN HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE TEMPORARY STAFF , PURSUANT SOLELY TO ARTICLE 4 OF THE GENERAL DECISION .
13 THE APPLICANT DOES NOT DENY THAT HE HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE COURT OF AUDITORS A TOTAL OF 48 MONTHS ' ADDITIONAL SENIORITY BOTH WHEN HE WAS PLACED IN GRADE A 6 AND IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1982 . HE DEMANDS , HOWEVER , THAT ARTICLE 4 OF THE INTERNAL DIRECTIVE OF FEBRUARY 1980 SHOULD BE APPLIED AND SUBMITS THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL SENIORITY OF ONE STEP IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD WHICH HE SPENT AS A MEMBER OF THE TEMPORARY STAFF . HE CLAIMS , FIRST , THAT THE COURT OF AUDITORS CANNOT DEPART FROM ITS OWN INTERNAL DIRECTIVE AND , SECONDLY , THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY THE SENIORITY IN STEP TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED CANNOT BE LIMITED TO 48 MONTHS , SINCE THE COURT OF AUDITORS HAS IN THE PAST ALLOWED MUCH GREATER SENIORITY TO STAFF RECRUITED FROM OUTSIDE . THE REFUSAL TO ALLOW HIM THE SENIORITY CLAIMED THEREFORE PERPETUATES DISCRIMINATION WHICH WAS CONDEMNED BY THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1982 .
14 IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT , ALTHOUGH THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1982 ORDERED THE COURT OF AUDITORS TO ' REMOVE THE DIFFERENCE IN CLASSIFICATION BETWEEN HIM AND OFFICIALS FROM OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY ' , IT COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE THE COURT OF AUDITORS TO BREACH THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 32 . THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF TREATMENT , TO WHICH THAT JUDGMENT REFERS , MUST BE RECONCILED WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY , ACCORDING TO WHICH NO PERSON MAY RELY , IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM , ON AN UNLAWFUL ACT COMMITTED IN FAVOUR OF ANOTHER ( JUDGMENT OF 9 OCTOBER 1984 IN CASE 188/83 WITTE V EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ( 1984 ) ECR 3465 ).
15 THUS THE SOLE EFFECT OF THE JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1982 WAS TO REQUIRE THE COURT OF AUDITORS TO RESTORE EQUALITY OF TREATMENT BETWEEN OFFICIALS , SUBJECT TO THE LIMITS ON THE ADDITIONAL SENIORITY WHICH MAY BE GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
16 AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENTS OF 12 JULY 1984 ( CASE 17/83 ANGELIDIS V COMMISSION ( 1984 ) ECR 2907 ) AND OF 6 JUNE 1985 ( CASE 146/84 DE SANTIS V COURT OF AUDITORS ( 1985 ) ECR 1731 ), PERIODS OF SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE TEMPORARY STAFF OF AN INSTITUTION , TOGETHER WITH QUALIFICATIONS AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE , ARE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 32 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . THEY ARE THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE SAME RESTRICTIONS ON THE MAXIMUM ADDITIONAL SENIORITY THAT MAY BE GRANTED , THAT IS TO SAY - FOR THE GRADE IN QUESTION - 48 MONTHS .
17 SINCE THE APPLICANT DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT THE COURT OF AUDITORS HAS ALLOWED HIM SENIORITY AT THE MAXIMUM AUTHORIZED RATE , HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELY UPON THE JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1982 IN ORDER TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL SENIORITY .
18 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE APPLICATION MUST BE DISMISSED .