1 . CRITICISM OF THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE DEFENDANT IN ITS STATEMENT OF DEFENCE, THE DEFENDANT SET FORTH THE METHOD EMPLOYED TO ASCERTAN THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE APPLICANT, AS REPRODUCED IN THE CONTESTED DECISION . THE FIRST OPERATION IN THE RECLASSIFICATION CONSISTED IN THE TRANSFER FROM GRADE L/A, SECOND ADDITIONAL STEP, WHICH THE APPLICANT HELD UNDER THE FORMER STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE ECSC, TO GRADE L/A 4, STEP 7, OF THE SALARY SCALE OF THE NEW STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE ECSC . IN THIS FIRST OPERATION, THE DEFENDANT CORRECTLY APPLIED ANNEX X TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS . GRADES L/A, L/B, L/C AND L/D OF THE FORMER LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT CORRESPOND EXACTLY TO THE FORMER GRADES 4, 5, 6 AND 7 INCREASED BY ONE STEP . IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE SECOND ADDITIONAL STEP OF GRADE L/A IS EQUIVALENT TO THE HIGHEST STEP OF THE FORMER GRADE 4, INCREASED BY THE VALUE OF A STEP OF GRADE 4, THAT IS 300 UNITS OF ACCOUNT . THIS INTERPRETATION IS CORROBORATED BY PARAGRAPH ( 4 ) ( B ) OF ANNEX X TO THE NEW STAFF REGULATIONS, WHICH BY CONFERRING AN ' EXTRA ' STEP ON THE OFFICIALS OF THE LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT, CLEARLY TENDS TO RETAIN FOR THESE OFFICIALS THE ADVANTAGE OF THE HIGHER STEP PROVIDED FOR IN THE FORMER STAFF REGULATIONS AND MENTIONED ABOVE . THE SECOND OPERATION IN THE RECLASSIFICATION CONSISTED IN ADDING TO THE AMOUNT ATTAINED AT THE FIRST OPERATION ( 41250 FRANCS ) THE VALUE OF ONE STEP OF GRADE L/A 4 ( 1650 FRANCS ) IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE RULE IN PARAGRAPH ( 4 ) ( B ) OF ANNEX X . IT FOLLOWS FROM THE PROVISION APPLIED, AND IN PARTICULAR FROM THE WORDS ' ...SHALL BE CLASSIFIED IN THE GRADE FOR HIS POST AND AT THE STEP WITHIN THAT GRADE DIRECTLY ABOVE ... ', THAT THE STEP ABOVE MUST BE CONFERRED WITHIN THE GRADE AT THE POINT ARRIVED AT BY THE RECLASSIFICATION, THAT IS TO SAY, IN THIS CASE, IN GRADE L/A 3, IN WHICH THE VALUE OF THE STEP AMOUNTS TO 2150 FRANCS . FOR THIS REASON, THE SECOND OPERATION IN THE RECLASSIFICATION HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTLY CARRIED OUT . IN THE THIRD PLACE, THE DEFENDANT ADDED TO THE ABOVE FIGURE THE VALUE OF A STEP IN GRADE L/A 4 ( 1650 FRANCS ) IN ORDER TO CARRY FORWARD THE TWO YEARS' SENIORITY ACQUIRED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE SECOND ADDITIONAL STEP OF GRADE L/A . ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 94 OF THE NEW STAFF REGULATIONS ' OFFICIALS INTEGRATED THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 93 ( WHICH PROVISION REFERS TO ANNEX X ) RETAIN...THE BENEFIT OF THE SENIORITY ACQUIRED WITHIN THE LAST ... STEP WHICH THEY OCCUPIED AT THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THESE REGULATIONS ... '. THAT PROVISION CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE CARRYING FORWARD OF SENIORITY APPLIES TO AN INTEGRATED OFFICIAL, THAT IS TO SAY, IN THIS CASE, ALREADY CLASSIFIED IN GRADE L/A 3, AND THAT, CONSEQUENTLY, IT WAS NECESSARY TO EMPLOY THE VALUE OF A STEP WITHIN THIS LAST GRADE ( 2150 FRANCS ). FOR THIS REASON THE THIRD OPERATION IN THE RECLASSIFICATION CAN ALSO NOT BE APPROVED . THE DEFENDANT IN THE FOURTH PLACE ADDED TO THE PRECEDING FIGURE THE SUM OF 635 FRANCS, REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE APPLICANT'S FORMER SALARY AND THE SALARY OF THE NEW GRADE L/A 4, STEP 8, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED HIM IF HE HAD NOT BEEN ENTITLED TO GRADE L/A 3 . THE COMPENSATORY ALLOWANCE PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 95 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS MAY ONLY BE GRANTED IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FORMER REMUNERATION AND THAT RESULTING FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE NEW STAFF REGULATIONS . IT IS THUS ONLY AFTER THE LAST OPERATION IN THE RECLASSIFICATION THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE OFFICIAL'S REMUNERATION HAS BEEN REDUCED BY REASON OF THE APPLICATION OF THE NEW STAFF REGULATIONS . IN THE CASE IN QUESTION, THE SALARY CORRESPONDING TO THE APPLICANT'S GRADE AND STEP RECOGNIZED BY THE CONTESTED DECISION IS HIGHER THAN THE REMUNERATION RECEIVED UNDER THE FORMER STAFF REGULATIONS . FOR THIS REASON NO COMPENSATORY ALLOWANCE CAN BE GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT OR TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN AN INTERMEDIATE OPERATION IN THE RECLASSIFICATION . THE DEFENDANT HAS FINALLY ADDED THE VALUE OF A NEW STEP IN GRADE L/A 4 ( 1650 FRANCS ) PURSUANT TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 46 OF THE NEW STAFF REGULATIONS AND HAS THUS FINALLY ARRIVED AT A FIGURE OF 46835 FRANCS, CORRESPONDING TO GRADE L/A 3, STEP 5, ( 45520 FRANCS ) WITH A BALANCE OF 1585 FRANCS ARISING FROM THE CALCULATION OF THE NOTIONAL STEP AND PRODUCING A SENIORITY AT 1 JANUARY 1962 OF 18 MONTHS IN STEP 5 OF GRADE L/A 3 . THE APPLICANT DID NOT ATTAIN GRADE L/A 3 THROUGH PROMOTION . THIS GRADE WAS AUTOMATICALLY CONFERRED ON HIM IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ANNEX 1 TO THE NEW STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE ECSC, FOLLOWING THE REVALUATION UNDER THE REGULATIONS OF HIS POST AS ' HEAD OF THE TRANSLATION DIVISION '. APART FROM THE CONSIDERATIONS OF PRINCIPLE SET FORTH BELOW AT 3, IT MUST AT THIS POINT BE OBSERVED THAT ARTICLE 46 APPLIES THE CARRYING FORWARD OF SENIORITY BY EMPLOYING THE VALUE OF THE STEP OF THE FORMER GRADE; ON THE OTHER HAND, AS HAS BEEN STATED ABOVE, ARTICLE 94 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS APPEARING AMONG THE PROVISIONS REFERRING PARTICULARLY TO THE ' ADJUSTMENT TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS ', PROVIDES THAT SENIORITY SHALL BE CARRIED FORWARD AT THE VALUE OF THE STEP IN THE NEW GRADE . ON THIS GROUND, INDEED, THE FINAL OPERATION IN THE RECLASSIFICATION WAS INVALIDITY CARRIED OUT BY THE DEFENDANT . ON THE ABOVE-MENTIONED GROUNDS THE CONTESTED DECISION HAS NOT CORRECTLY APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND MUST BE ANNULLED IN SO FAR AS IT LAYS DOWN THE STEP TO WHICH THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED .
2 . CRITICISM OF THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE APPLICANT THE APPLICANT ALLEGES THAT HE WAS PLACED BY IMPLICATION IN GRADE 3, STEP 5, UNDER THE FORMER STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE ECSC . IN FACT THE BASIC SALARY ( 8220 UNITS OF ACCOUNT ) WHICH GOES WITH GRADE L/A, SECOND ADDITIONAL STEP, IS HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE HIGHEST STEP OF THE FORMER GRADE 4, BUT IS EQUIVALENT APPROXIMATELY TO STEP 5 OF THE FORMER GRADE 3 . ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT'S ARGUMENT, BY CARRYING FORWARD THE SENIORITY ACQUIRED IN THE FORMER GRADE AND BY APPLYING THE ' EXTRA ' STEP RECOGNIZED FOR OFFICIALS OF THE LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT, HE MUST BE CLASSIFIED ON 1 JANUARY 1962 IN GRADE L/A 3, STEP 7, WITH THE RIGHT TO THE NEXT STEP ON 1 JANUARY 1964 . UNDER THE FORMER STAFF REGULATIONS THE APPLICANT HAD EXPRESSLY ATTAINED GRADE L/A, SECOND ADDITIONAL STEP . THIS GRADE MUST THEREFORE SERVE AS THE POINT OF DEPARTURE FOR THE RECLASSIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCALE OF THE NEW STAFF REGULATIONS, ALL THE MORE SO SINCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO BE APPOINTED BY IMPLICATION TO ANOTHER GRADE . MOREOVER, IT EMERGES CLEARLY FROM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF PRESIDENTS ON 5 MARCH 1956 THAT GRADE L/A WAS THE FORMER GRADE 4, INCREASED BY ONE STEP . THEREFORE, WITHIN THE APPLICANT'S SYSTEM, THE PROVISION OF PARAGRAPH ( 4 ) ( B ) OF ANNEX X PROVIDING FOR THE ADDITION OF THE VALUE OF ONE STEP BECOMES POINTLESS SINCE THE REASON FOR GRANTING THIS STEP IS TO COMPENSATE THOSE ESTABLISHED IN THE FORMER GRADES ' L ', BY AN INCREASE OF ONE STEP IN RELATION TO THE FORMER GRADES 4, 5, 6 AND 7 . THE MOST FAVOURABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE APPLICANT'S CALCULATIONS COULD NOT THEREFORE RESULT IN THE GRANTING OF STEP 6 OF GRADE L/A 3 AT 1 JANUARY 1962 . MOREOVER, AS THE APPLICANT EMPLOYED AN IMPLIED GRADE WHICH HE DID NOT HAVE AS THE POINT OF DEPARTURE, HIS CALCULATION CANNOT CONSTITUTE A VALID BASIS FOR RECTIFYING HIS CLASSIFICATION .
3 . METHOD ARISING FROM THE SPIRIT OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IT IS FOR THE COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS UNLIMITED JURISDICTION, TO RE-ESTABLISH THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE APPLICANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STAFF REGULATIONS . AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED ABOVE, THE FIRST OPERATION CONSISTS IN RECLASSIFYING THE APPLICANT'S FORMER CLASSIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCALES OF THE NEW STAFF REGULATIONS AS GRADE L/A 4, STEP 7 . IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANNEX I TO THE NEW STAFF REGULATIONS, THE APPLICANT SHOULD TRANSFER TO GRADE L/A 3 CORRESPONDING TO THE POST OF ' HEAD OF THE TRANSLATION DIVISION '. THE TRANSFER FROM GRADE L/A 4 TO GRADE L/A 3 RAISES A DIFFICULTY CAUSED BY THE SILENCE OF THE NEW STAFF REGULATIONS WHEN THE RECLASSIFICATION MUST BE EFFECTED TO A HIGHER GRADE THAN THAT CORRESPONDING TO THE GRADE WHICH THE PERSON CONCERNED HELD IN THE SCALES OF THE FORMER STAFF REGULATIONS . WITH REGARD TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE STEP, IT IS THEREFORE FOR THE COURT TO ARRIVE AT THE MOST REASONABLE SOLUTION WHICH CORRESPONDS MOST WITH THE ' RATIO LEGIS '. THE STAFF REGULATIONS EFFECT A REVALUATION OF THE POST BECAUSE OF A MORE FAVOURABLE EVALUATION OF THE DUTIES . IN THIS CASE THE POST OCCUPIED BY THE APPLICANT, WHICH WAS AN A 4 POST UNDER THE FORMER STAFF REGULATIONS, WAS TRANSFORMED INTO AN A 3 POST . SINCE THE STAFF REGULATIONS ARE SILENT THE REVALUATION OF THE POST MUST LOGICALLY BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT THE FORMER EVALUATION OF THE POST WAS TOO LOW BY A COMPLETE GRADE . IN FACT, AS ARTICLE 44 AND THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 32 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS SHOW, THE ESSENTIAL ROLE OF THE STEP IS TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE SENIORITY OF THE OFFICIAL AND THUS OF A FACTOR RELATING TO HIS INDIVIDUAL POSITION . THE SOLE EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE, ESTABLISHED BY THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 32 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, IS NOT SUCH AS TO INVALIDATE THE REASONING SET FORTH ABOVE, SINCE IT RELATES TO ' THE SPECIAL EXPERIENCE FOR THE POST OF THE PERSON CONCERNED ' AND THUS TO A FACTOR PERSONAL TO THE LATTER . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE REVALUATION OF THE POST IS BASED ON A CRITERION INDEPENDENT OF THESE FACTORS, THAT IS, BY THE VALUE TO BE ATTRIBUTED IN GENERAL AND ABSTRACT TERMS TO A GIVEN ' BASIC POST '. CONSEQUENTLY, SINCE THE REVALUATION OF THE POST AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE STEP ARE GUIDED BY ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CRITERIA, LOGIC REQUIRES THAT THE ADVANTAGES ARISING FROM BOTH FOR THE PERSON CONCERNED SHOULD BE ACCUMULATED SEPARATELY, AND CERTANLY NOT SET OFF AGAINST ONE ANOTHER EVEN PARTIALLY . CONSEQUENTLY, SINCE THE STAFF REGULATIONS ARE SILENT, IT MUST BE ADMITTED THAT IN CASES OF REVALUATION OF A POST, THE PERSON CONCERNED MUST BE CLASSIFIED IN HIS NEW GRADE AT THE SAME STEP AS THAT WHICH HE OCCUPIED IN THE FORMER GRADE . THE ARGUMENT THAT IF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ARE SILENT, THE REVALUATION OF THE POST SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE RULES LAID DOWN WITH REGARD TO PROMOTION MUST BE DISMISSED . IN FACT, AND IN THE FIRST PLACE, AS FOLLOWS FROM ARTICLE 45 ( 1 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, PROMOTION DEPENDS EXCLUSIVELY ON THE ' MERITS OF THE OFFICIALS ELIGIBLE ' THEREFORE AND THUS ON A SUBJECTIVE CRITERION, WHICH, AS HAS JUST BEEN SAID, IS FOREIGN TO THE REASONS FOR A REVALUATION OF THE POST . IN THE SECOND PLACE, SINCE THE PROMOTION CLASSIFIED THE PERSON CONCERNED IN HIS NEW GRADE AT A STEP APPRECIABLY LOWER THAN THE ONE WHICH HE HAD IN HIS FORMER GRADE, THE APPLICATION OF THE RULES PERTAINING TO PROMOTION IN CASES OF REVALUATION OF POSTS ESTABLISHES A DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN THE OFFICIAL WHOSE POST HAS BEEN REVALUED AND ALL OTHER OFFICIALS NEWLY RECRUITED IN A POST OF THE SAME RANK . IN FACT, THIS APPLICATION OF THE RULES PERTAINING TO PROMOTION WOULD, FOR EXAMPLE, ALLOW AN OFFICIAL CLASSIFIED AS A 4, STEP 4, WHOSE POST WAS REVALUED AS A 3, TO PASS TO THE FIRST STEP OF GRADE A 3 THUS PLACING HIM IN THE SAME POSITION AS A NEWLY RECRUITED A 3 OFFICIAL WHOSE ACTUAL SENIORITY WOULD NEVERTHELESS BE AT LEAST SIX YEARS LESS THAN THAT OF THE FIRST OFFICIAL . AS THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS ARE SILENT ON THIS POINT, THE COURT CANNOT PRESUME THAT THE AUTHORS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS WISHED TO COUNTENANCE SO IN-EQUITABLE A SOLUTION . IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS THAT IN THIS CASE THE TRANSFER FROM GRADE L/A 4, STEP 7, TO GRADE L/A 3, MUST LEAD TO CLASSIFICATION IN THIS GRADE AT THE SAME STEP . THERE ARE NO GROUNDS IN THIS CASE FOR CONTINUING THE RECLASSIFICATION . IN FACT, THEY HAVE ARRIVED AT THE STAGE CORRESPONDING EXACTLY TO THAT CLAIMED BY THE APPLICANT IN HIS PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS . IT FOLLOWS FROM THE RECLASSIFICATION OPERATIONS SET FORTH ABOVE THAT THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO BE CLASSIFIED AS AT 1 JANUARY 1962 IN STEP 7 OF GRADE L/A 3, WITH SENIORITY IN THE STEP FROM 1 JANUARY 1962 . C - ON THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM AS HAS BEEN SET FORTH ABOVE, THE CLASSIFICATION TO WHICH THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED IS THAT WHICH HE CLAIMED IN HIS PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS . CONSEQUENTLY, AN EXAMINATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE CONCLUSIONS IS RENDERED IRRELEVANT .