1 BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 3 SEPTEMBER 1982 MRS KIRSTEN JOHANNING , AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , BROUGHT AN ACTION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY REFUSING TO AMEND THE GRADE AND STEP IN WHICH THE APPLICANT HAD BEEN CLASSIFIED ON HER ENGAGEMENT AS A MEMBER OF THE LANGUAGE STAFF .
2 THE APPLICANT WAS APPOINTED A TRANSLATOR IN GRADE L/A 7 , STEP 3 , BY DECISION OF 14 APRIL 1980 . THAT DECISION REFERRED TO VACANCY NOTICE NO COM/1078/78 RELATING TO A POST OF TRANSLATOR AND TO THE OPEN COMPETITION , BASED ON TESTS , NO COM/LA/150 TO CONSTITUTE A RESERVE OF ' ' ASSISTANT TRANSLATORS . . . IN THE CAREER BRACKETS COVERING GRADES L/A 8 AND L/A 7 ' ' , ORGANIZED BY THE COMMISSION IN 1977 IN WHICH THE APPLICANT HAD SUCCESSFULLY TAKEN PART .
3 BETWEEN THE COMPETITION AND THE COMMISSION DECISION TO ENGAGE THE APPLICANT COUNCIL REGULATION NO 912/78 OF 2 MAY 1978 AMENDING THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF OTHER SERVANTS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , L 119 , P . 1 ) HAD REORGANIZED THE CAREER BRACKET OF ASSISTANT TRANSLATOR AND TRANSLATOR AS DEFINED IN ANNEX I A TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS . THE CAREER BRACKET OF ASSISTANT TRANSLATOR PREVIOUSLY COVERING GRADES L/A 8 AND L/A 7 WAS RESTRICTED TO GRADE L/A 8 AND THE CAREER BRACKET OF TRANSLATOR WHICH PREVIOUSLY COVERED GRADES L/A 6 AND L/A 5 HENCEFORTH COVERED GRADES L/A 7 AND L/A 6 .
4 THE APPLICANT HAD 11 YEARS ' PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE . THAT EXPERIENCE SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS WHICH , PURSUANT TO THE COMMISSION DECISION ON THE CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO CLASSIFICATION IN GRADE AND STEP UPON RECRUITMENT , WOULD , PRIOR TO THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REORGANIZATION OF THE CAREER BRACKETS , HAVE JUSTIFIED CLASSIFICATION IN L/A 7 , STEP 3 , OF THE FORMER CAREER BRACKET OF ASSISTANT TRANSLATOR .
5 AFTER BECOMING AWARE OF THE NEW CRITERIA FOR GRADING ADOPTED AFTER THE REORGANIZATION OF THE CAREER BRACKETS THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THE APOINTING AUTHORITY TO AMEND HER GRADE AND STEP AND TO ASSIGN HER TO GRADE L/A 6 , STEP 3 , WHICH IN THE CAREER BRACKET OF TRANSLATOR WOULD HAVE CORRESPONDED TO HER EXPERIENCE ACCORDING TO THE NEW CRITERIA . THAT REQUEST WAS REJECTED AND A COMPLAINT UNDER ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS DID NOT RECEIVE A REPLY WITHIN THE PERIOD PROVIDED THEREBY , AND THE APPLICANT THEREUPON BROUGHT THE PRESENT ACTION .
6 THE APPLICANT ALLEGES THAT IN APPOINTING HER TO A POST IN A NEW CAREER BRACKET OF TRANSLATOR THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY RECOGNIZED THAT SHE POSSESSED THE QUALIFICATIONS AND MUST THEREFORE APPLY TO HER THE CRITERIA FOR AN APPOINTMENT IN THAT CAREER BRACKET WHICH WERE IN FORCE WHEN SHE WAS RECRUITED , THAT IS TO SAY AS AMENDED BY THE COMMISSION AFTER THE REORGANIZATION OF THE CAREER BRACKETS .
7 IN ANSWER THE COMMISSION STATES THAT THE APPLICANT HAD BEEN APPOINTED FOLLOWING A COMPETITION FOR ASSISTANT TRANSLATORS , THAT IS , AT A LOWER LEVEL THAN COMPETITIONS FOR TRANSLATORS AND THAT GRADE L/A 7 AS TRANSLATOR HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO HER AND TO OTHER APPLICANTS IN THE SAME COMPETITION APPOINTED AFTER 2 MAY 1978 ONLY IN ORDER NOT TO DISAPPOINT THEIR LEGITIMATE HOPES OF OBTAINING AN APPOINTMENT IN GRADE L/A 7 FOR WHICH THEY SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS IN THE CAREER BRACKET OF ASSISTANT TRANSLATOR AT THE TIME OF THE COMPETITION .
8 IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT REGULATION NO 912/78 PROVIDED NO TRANSITIONAL PROVISION AND ABOLISHED WITH EFFECT FROM ITS ENTRY INTO FORCE GRADE L/A 7 IN THE CAREER BRACKET OF ASSISTANT TRANSLATOR . THAT ABOLITION CAUSED CERTAIN TRANSITIONAL PROBLEMS WHICH IT WAS FOR THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO RESOLVE IN THE ABSENCE OF APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS IN THE REGULATION .
9 IN THIS CASE THE APPLICANTS WHO HAD TAKEN PART IN A COMPETITION BEFORE THE REORGANIZATION OF THE CAREER BRACKETS MIGHT LEGITIMATELY HOPE TO BE APPOINTED IN THE HIGHER GRADE OF THE FORMER CAREER BRACKET OF ASSISTANT TRANSLATOR IF THEY SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS . THE COMMISSION TOOK ACCOUNT THEREOF IN ASSIGNING THE APPLICANTS APPOINTED AFTER THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF REGULATION NO 912/78 , FOLLOWING A COMPETITION ORGANIZED BEFORE THAT DATE , TO THE GRADE AND STEP WHICH THEY MIGHT HAVE EXPECTED ACCORDING TO THE FORMER CRITERIA OF APPOINTMENT AND CLASSIFICATION IN THE FORMER CAREER BRACKET OF ASSISTANT TRANSLATOR , WHILST NEVERTHELESS APPOINTING THEM , WHERE APPROPRIATE , TO THE NEW CAREER BRACKET OF TRANSLATOR TO WHICH GRADE L/A 7 WAS HENCEFORTH RESERVED .
10 ALTHOUGH THAT SOLUTION MAY HAVE RESULTED IN CERTAIN APPLICANTS BEING CLASSIFIED LESS FAVOURABLY , ACCORDING TO THE NEW CRITERIA FOR APPOINTMENT AND GRADING , THAN CERTAIN APPLICANTS FOR POSTS AS TRANSLATORS RECRUITED AS SUCH , IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT THE APPLICANTS IN QUESTION WERE ENGAGED FOLLOWING A COMPETITION FOR ASSISTANT TRANSLATORS AND THEIR APPOINTMENT AS TRANSLATORS WAS POSSIBLE ONLY AS PART OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED TRANSITIONAL PRACTICE . A DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT RESULTING FROM THE APPLICATION TO SUCH APPLICANTS OF THE FORMER CRITERIA FOR APPOINTMENT AND GRADING AS COMPARED WITH THE TREATMENT OF APPLICANTS ENGAGED FOLLOWING A COMPETITION FOR TRANSLATORS IS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED .
11 IT MUST BE ADDED THAT IN ADOPTING THAT TRANSITIONAL PRACTICE THE COMMISSION OBSERVED THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY INASMUCH AS IT DETERMINED THE CLASSIFICATION IN GRADE AND STEP OF ALL THE APPLICANTS ENGAGED FOLLOWING THE COMPETITION IN QUESTION ACCORDING TO THE SAME CRITERIA IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THEY WERE ENGAGED BEFORE OR , LIKE THE APPLICANT , AFTER THE REORGANIZATION OF THE CAREER BRACKETS .
12 SINCE THE CLASSIFICATION IN GRADE AND STEP OF THE APPLICANT WAS CORRECTLY EFFECTED , THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY RIGHTLY REFUSED HER REQUEST TO AMEND THE DECISION RELATING THERETO .
13 THE APPLICATION MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .