V Councils of the EEC, EAEC and ECSC the European
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 17 JUNE 1965<appnote>1</appnote> Richard Müller v Councils of the EEC, EAEC and ECSC Case 43/64 Summary 1. Officials — Appointing authority acting in the name of its institution — Measures affecting the legal position of officials and other servants — Attributable to the institution (Staff Regulations of officials of the EEC and EAEC, Article 2) 2. Officials — Appeals by officials — Citation of institution from which the act adversely affecting the person concerned originates (Staff Regulations of the EEC and EAEC, Article 91) 3. European Communities — Separate legal personality — Councils of Ministers — Institutions legally separate 4. Procedure — Judgment granting annulment — Legal effects — Limited to the parties and to the persons directly concerned by the measure annulled — Judg ment constituting a new factor — Concept 1. Cf. para. 1, Summary, in Case 28/64. of a judgment of the Court annulling 2. Cf. para. 2, Summary, in Case 28/64. a measure are, the persons directly 3. Cf. para. 3, Summary in Case 28/64. affected by the measure which is 4. Apart from the actual parties in pro annulled. Such a judgment can only ceedings before the Court, the only constitute a new factor as regards persons concerned by the legal effects those persons. In Case 43/64 RICHARD MÜLLER, an official of the Secretariat-General of the Councils of the European Communities, represented and assisted by Manfred Schwall of the Karlsruhe Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 6 rue Willy-Goergen, applicant, v COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, COUNCIL OF THE EURO PEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY AND THE SPECIAL COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, represented by Hans Jürgen 1 — Language of the Case: German. 385 JUDGMENT OF 17. 6. 1965 — CASE 43/54 Lambers, Legal Adviser at the Secretariat-General of the Councils, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Jacques Leclerc, an official at the Secretariat-General of the Councils, 3 rue Auguste-Lumière, defendant, Application for the classification of the applicant at a higher step in Grade B1, THE COURT composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, A. M. Donner and R. Lecourt, Presidents of Chambers, L. Delvaux, A. Trabucchi, W. Strauß and R. Monaco (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate-General: J. Gand Registrar: A. Van Houtte gives the following JUDGMENT Issues of fact and of law I — Facts On 7 October 1963 the Secretariat adopted the definitions of the duties and The facts may be summarized as powers attaching to each basic post, in follows: accordance with Article 5 of the Staff On 31 August 1959 the applicant was Regulations. employed under contract by the Secre These definitions were brought to the tariat-General of the Councils in Grade notice of the staff on 15 October B VIII, Step 3. Subsequently he was 1963. classified at Step 4 of the same Grade, By letter dated 9 April 1964, the appli and as from 1 April 1961 at Step 3 of cant asked to be classified in one of the Grade E VII. grades of career bracket A5-A4 as By a decision of 17 January 1963 he from 1 January 1962, asserting that, was integrated under the new Staff according to the abovementioned de Regulations in Grade B2, Step 3, with finitions, the post occupied by him, effect from 1 January 1962. which he was occupying before the By a decision of 28 March 1963, the Staff Regulations came into force, fell Secretary-General granted the applicant within this career bracket. Having re Grade B1, with seniority back-dated to ceived no reply by 9 June 1964, the 1 October 1962, This was further back applicant lodged Application 28/64 on dated to 1 January 1962 by a decision 2 July 1964. of 21 June 1963, which took account of By letter of the same date, the Secre a complaint made by the Applicant on tary-General made his position clear 19 April 1963. with respect to this complaint and re- 386 MÜLLER v COUNCIL jected the applicant's resquest to be 2. Order the Secretary-General of the classified in career bracket A5-A4, Council of the European Communi stating that the post which the applicant ties to pay the costs.' was occupying before the Staff Regu The defendants request the Court lations came into force fell within career 'To declare the application inadmissible bracket B1. or, alternatively, unfounded and to order On 15 July 1964 the applicant submit the applicant to bear the costs, in so far ted a new request to the Secretary- as they are not payable by the defen General of the Councils, based on the dant by virtue of the provisions of position which the Secretary-General Articles 70 and 95 (1) of the Rules of had adopted, for the applicant to be Procedure.' placed at Step 3 of Grade B1, with seniority as from 1 April 1961. On 18 July 1964 the appointing author III — Submissions and argu ity took a decision on the career bracket ments of the parties to which the duties performed by the applicant corresponded, having regard The submissions and arguments of the to the definitions of the duties and parties may be summarized as follows: powers attaching to each basic post. Analogous decisions were taken at the As to the naming of the defendants as same time for all officials of the parties Secretariat. As, two months after the request of 15 The defendants assert that the applicant, July, the applicant had not received in his capacity as an official of the any reply, he instituted the present Councils of the EEC and the EAEC, proceedings by applications dated 23 should have instituted proceedings September 1964. against those bodies rather than the On 8 October 1964 the Secretary- Secretary-General, particularly since the General informed the applicant of the impugned decision must be attributed to decision of 18 July 1964. the Councils themselves. The applicant draws attention to the fact that he is an official of the Euro II — Conclusions of the parties pean Economic Community and of the European Atomic Energy Community The applicant claims that the Court and that he works in the Secretariat- should: General of the Councils of the EEC, '1. Annul the implied decision of the EAEC and ECSC. The argument of Secretary-General of the Councils of the defendants that officials of the Sec the European Communities resulting retariat of the Councils who are officials from the expiry on 15 September of the EEC and EAEC should make 1964 of the time-limit laid down in their applications against the Councils of the second subparagraph of Article those Communities and that those who 91 (2) of the Staff Regulations of are officials of the ECSC should make officials of the European Economic them against the Special Council of Community and of the European Ministers gives rise to practical difficul Atomic Energy Community rejecting ties with regard to the execution of a request by the applicant to be judgments of the Court, for from the classified at Step 3 of Grade B1 budgetary point of view the three with effect from 1 January 1962 Councils are one and the same institu with seniority at that step back-dated tion. The argument is also open to to 1 April 1961; criticism from the legal point of view, 387 JUDGMENT OF. 17. 6. 1965 — CASE 43/64 for it would result in a servant of the sufficiently precise. The fact is that a step Secretariat having to bring his action can only be granted in a grade which against an institution (in this case the has already been decided upon. Council of the ECSC) of which he is The defendants conclude by leaving this not an official. point to the discretion of the Court. Besides, in view of the fact that the The application first reminds the Court complaints referred to in Article 90 of of the circumstances prior to his bring the Staff Regulations must be submitted ing this application, and then emphasizes to the appointing authority, it would its independent character compared with seem that the appeals mentioned in the Application 28/64. He points out in following Article should also be made this respect that Application 28/64 dealt against the said authority (cf. judgment with the classification of the applicant in Joined Cases 79 and 82/63). having regard to the nature of the The defendants reply that in any event duties which he performs, whereas Ap the Secretary-General acted as the ap plication 43/64 is directed at securing a pointing authority on behalf of the particular step, that is to say, the Councils of the EEC and the EAEC. adoption of a measure which, from the Even if the appointing authority is appointing authority's point of view, is not, as in the present case, identical the direct consequence of a decision with the institution properly so-called, which it has taken. In both applications an appeal can only be made against the the act impugned adversely affects the institution. The judgment in Joined applicant. In Application 28/64 the Cases 79 and 82/63 does not contradict act in question is the rejection of the this principle. Reference should be request by the applicant that he be made on the other hand to Cases classified in career bracket A5-A4. In 78/63 and 80/63. Application 43/64 the act is the rejec tion of his request to be placed at a Admissibility particular step as a result of the decision 1.