Aristides Vlachos v Court of Justice of the European Communities. [1984] EUECJ C-21/83 (13 December 1984)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Aristides Vlachos v Court of Justice of the European Communities. [1984] EUECJ C-21/83 (13 December 1984) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1984/C2183.html Cite as: [1984] EUECJ C-21/83 [ New search ] [ Help ] IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities . The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice . This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment. 61983J0020 Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 1984. Aristides Vlachos v Court of Justice of the European Communities. Official - Concepts of "promotion" and "recruitment". Joined cases 20 and 21/83. European Court reports 1984 Page 04149 1 . OFFICIALS - RECRUITMENT - PROMOTION - APPOINTMENT TO A HIGHER CAREER BRACKET FOLLOWING AN INTERNAL COMPETITION - APPOINTMENT TREATED AS PROMOTION - CLASSIFICATION IN GRADE - APPLICABLE RULES OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS - RULES GOVERNING PROMOTION ( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , ARTS 27 TO 34 , 45 AND 46 ) 2 . OFFICIALS - RECRUITMENT - ESTABLISHMENT AFTER PROBATIONARY PERIOD - PROMOTION - MINIMUM PERIOD OF SERVICE REQUIRED - SENIORITY AFTER THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD ( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , ART . 45 ( 1 ), SECOND PARAGRAPH ) 1 . WHILE RECRUITMENT MARKS ENTRY INTO A CATEGORY OR A SERVICE OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS , PROMOTION GOVERNS THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE CAREER THUS BEGUN WITHIN THE CATEGORY OR SERVICE WHICH THE CANDIDATE HAS ENTERED . THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS ARE THEREFORE RIGHT TO TREAT AN OFFICIAL ' S APPOINTMENT TO A HIGHER CAREER BRACKET FOLLOWING AN INTERNAL COMPETITION AS PROMOTION AND IN THAT REGARD TO APPLY THE RULES OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ON PROMOTION PROPERLY SO CALLED . THE OFFICIAL ' ' PROMOTED ' ' THROUGH THAT PROCEDURE MAY NOT BE TREATED MORE FAVOURABLY UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS THAN AN OFFICIAL WHO HAS COMPLETED THE REQUIRED MINIMUM PERIOD OF SERVICE . 2 . AN OFFICIAL ELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION WHO HAD TO COMPLETE A PROBATIONARY PERIOD BEFORE BEING ESTABLISHED MUST , EVEN AFTER COMPLETION OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD , COMPLETE THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF SERVICE REQUIRED BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS . IN JOINED CASES 20 AND 21/83 ARISTIDES VLACHOS , A LAWYER-REVISER AT THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , RESIDING AT 21 RUE BERTELS , LUXEMBOURG , REPRESENTED BY VICTOR BIEL , OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF MR BIEL , 18 A RUE DES GLACIS , APPLICANT , V COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY FRANCIS HUBEAU , HEAD OF THE PERSONNEL DIVISION , ASSISTED BY ALEX BONN , OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF MR BONN , 22 COTE D ' EICH , DEFENDANT , APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF TWO DECISIONS OF THE COURT REJECTING THE APPLICANT ' S COMPLAINTS SEEKING A CHANGE OF GRADING , 1 BY AN APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 8 FEBRUARY 1983 , THE APPLICANT , A LAWYER-REVISER AT THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , BROUGHT AN ACTION ( CASE 21/83 ) UNDER ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF 28 OCTOBER 1982 REJECTING HIS COMPLAINT OF 28 JULY 1982 , SUBMITTED UNDER ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , IN WHICH HE ASKED TO BE APPOINTED TO A GRADE AND STEP CORRESPONDING TO HIS AGE AND EXPERIENCE . 2 BY A SECOND APPLICATION LODGED ON THE SAME DAY , THE APPLICANT BROUGHT A FURTHER ACTION ( CASE 20/83 ) UNDER ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF 19 JANUARY 1983 REJECTING HIS COMPLAINT OF 15 OCTOBER 1982 LODGED AGAINST THE COURT ' S DECISION OF 29 JUNE 1983 APPOINTING HIM AT THE END OF AN INTERNAL COMPETITION TO A POST OF LAWYER-REVISER IN GRADE L/A 5 , STEP 1 , WITH SENIORITY IN STEP BACKDATED TO 1 SEPTEMBER 1980 . 3 THE APPLICANT WAS ENGAGED AS A MEMBER OF THE AUXILIARY STAFF ON 15 SEPTEMBER 1980 IN THE CAPACITY OF A LAWYER-LINGUIST . ON 1 JANUARY 1981 HE WAS APPOINTED A TEMPORARY SERVANT IN GRADE L/A 6 , STEP 3 . ON 1 APRIL 1981 HE WAS MADE A TEMPORARY REVISER FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS . BY A SUPPLEMENTARY CLAUSE DATED 15 SEPTEMBER 1981 HIS CONTRACT WAS AMENDED TO THE EFFECT THAT FROM 1 APRIL 1981 HE WAS EMPLOYED AS A LAWYER-REVISER AND CLASSIFIED IN GRADE L/A 5 , STEP 1 . AT THE END OF INTERNAL COMPETITION NO CJ 14/81 HE WAS APPOINTED A PROBATIONARY OFFICIAL EMPLOYED IN THE CAPACITY OF A LAWYER-LINGUIST AND CLASSIFIED IN GRADE L/A 6 , STEP 3 , WITH EFFECT FROM 1 OCTOBER 1981 . HIS TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT AS A REVISER WAS RENEWED AND HE RECEIVED AN ALLOWANCE COVERING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIS PAY IN GRADE L/A 6 AND THE PAY HE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED IN GRADE L/A 5 IN WHICH HE HAD BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A TEMPORARY SERVANT . 4 ON 20 JANUARY 1982 THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT ASKING TO BE ESTABLISHED AS A LAWYER-REVISER CAREER BRACKET L/A 5 - L/A 4 . HAVING RECEIVED NO REPLY TO HIS REQUEST , HE SUBMITTED A COMPLAINT , DATED 28 JULY 1982 , UNDER ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IN WHICH HE ASKED TO BE APPOINTED TO A GRADE AND STEP WHICH CORRESPONDED TO HIS AGE AND EXPERIENCE . 5 BY DECISION OF 30 JUNE 1982 THE APPLICANT WAS ESTABLISHED IN GRADE L/A 6 , STEP 3 , WITH SENIORITY IN STEP BACKDATED TO 1 JANUARY 1981 . 6 AT ITS ADMINISTRATIVE MEETING ON 29 JUNE 1982 THE COURT , UPON HEARING THE REPORT OF THE SELECTION BOARD IN INTERNAL COMPETITION NO CJ 149/81 , APPOINTED THE APPLICANT A LAWYER-REVISER IN GRADE L/A 5 , STEP 1 , AS FROM 1 JULY 1982 WITH SENIORITY IN STEP BACKDATED TO 1 SEPTEMBER 1980 . ON 15 OCTOBER 1982 , THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A COMPLAINT AGAINST THAT DECISION , WHICH WAS NOTIFIED TO HIM ON 5 OCTOBER 1982 , AND ASKED TO BE APPOINTED TO GRADE L/A 5 , STEP 4 . 7 THE COMPLAINT DATED 28 JULY 1982 WAS REJECTED BY A DECISION OF 28 OCTOBER 1982 AND THE COMPLAINT OF 15 OCTOBER 1982 BY A DECISION OF 19 JANUARY 1983 . THE APPLICANT HAS BROUGHT THESE ACTIONS AGAINST THOSE DECISIONS . 8 IN CASE 21/83 THE APPLICANT ASKS THE COURT TO ANNUL THE DECISION OF 28 OCTOBER 1982 AND TO DECLARE THAT HE MUST BE REGARDED AS ' ' RECRUITED ' ' FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLES 29 TO 32 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY ARTICLE 46 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO HIM . IN CASE 20/83 HE ASKS THE COURT TO ANNUL THE DECISION OF 19 JANUARY 1983 AND TO DECLARE THAT HE MUST BE TREATED AS A NEWLY RECRUITED OFFICIAL FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLES 29 TO 32 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY ARTICLE 46 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO HIM . 9 IN ITS DECISION OF 28 OCTOBER 1982 THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY STATED THAT IN HIS REQUEST OF 20 JANUARY 1982 THE APPLICANT ASKED TO BE APPOINTED TO A POST OF LAWYER-REVISER AND CLASSIFIED IN GRADE L/A 5 , STEP 4 , WITHOUT TAKING PART IN A COMPETITION AND MOREOVER WITHOUT MEETING THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 45 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . IN SO FAR AS THE APPLICANT ' S REQUEST WAS FOR HIS IMMEDIATE APPOINTMENT TO GRADE L/A 5 , IT HAD LOST ITS PURPOSE FROM THE TIME WHEN THE APPLICANT , WHO WAS AT THAT TIME A LAWYER-LINGUIST IN GRADE L/A 5 , STEP 3 , ENTERED THE COMPETITION FOR THE RECRUITMENT OF REVISERS OR AT ANY RATE ONCE HE WAS APPOINTED A REVISER AND CLASSIFIED IN GRADE L/A 5 , STEP 1 . IN ANY CASE , IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO GRANT HIS REQUEST WITHOUT INFRINGING THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . AT THE TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO GRADE L/A 5 , THE APPLICANT WAS NOT A NEWLY RECRUITED OFFICIAL FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 32 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS BUT AN ESTABLISHED OFFICIAL PROMOTED FROM GRADE L/A 6 TO GRADE L/A 5 . HIS GRADING WAS THEREFORE GOVERNED BY ARTICLE 46 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . 10 IN ITS DECISION OF 19 JANUARY 1983 THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY REJECTED THE COMPLAINT OF 15 OCTOBER 1982 FOR THOSE REASONS . 11 IN BOTH ACTIONS THE APPLICANT ' S SUBMISSIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS : ( I ) WRONG APPLICATION OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ; ( II)BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION ; ( III)BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT OF OFFICIALS WITHIN THE SAME INSTITUTION ; ( IV)BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT OF OFFICIALS HAVING REGARD TO THE PRACTICE OF ALL THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS ; ( V)BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SOUND ADMINISTRATION CONSIDERED WITH SUBMISSION ( IV ); ( VI)BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION AND ( VII)UNJUSTIFIED DEPARTURE FROM THE COURT ' S CONSISTENT PRACTICE . CASE 21/83 12 THE DECISION OF 28 OCTOBER 1982 , WHICH THE APPLICANT ASKS TO BE ANNULLED , WAS TAKEN BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IN RESPONSE TO THE APPLICANT ' S COMPLAINT OF 28 JULY 1982 . THAT COMPLAINT WAS LODGED AFTER THE APPLICANT HAD SUBMITTED THE REQUEST TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT ON 20 JANUARY 1982 ASKING TO BE ESTABLISHED AS A LAWYER-REVISER ( CAREER BRACKET L/A 5 - L/A 4 ). WHEN HE SUBMITTED THAT REQUEST THE APPLICANT WAS A PROBATIONARY OFFICIAL IN GRADE L/A 6 , HAVING BEEN CLASSIFIED AMONG THE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES IN COMPETITION NO CJ 14/81 . IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT COMPETITION WAS TO RECRUIT LAWYER-LINGUISTS IN CAREER BRACKET L/A 7 - L/A 6 AND THAT THE COURT COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE APPLICANT IN A POST IN CAREER BRACKET L/A 5 - L/A 4 WITHOUT INFRINGING THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . THE ACTION MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED , IT BEING UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS SET OUT IN THE APPLICATION . CASE 20/83 THE FIRST SUBMISSION 13 THE APPLICANT ' S ARGUMENT IS THAT IN ORDER TO ' ' RECRUIT ' ' FIVE GREEK-LANGUAGE LAWYER-REVISERS THE COURT PUBLISHED NOTICE OF INTERNAL COMPETITION NO CJ 149/81 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 29 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS BECAUSE IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO FILL THOSE FIVE POSTS BY PROMOTION , SINCE NONE OF THE GREEK STAFF IN THE SERVICE OF THE COURT MET THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS - NONE OF THEM WAS AN ESTABLISHED OFFICIAL WHO HAD COMPLETED TWO YEARS ' SERVICE IN GRADE L/A 6 . THE SAME REASON WAS GIVEN BY THE COURT ' S ADMINISTRATION WHEN IT INFORMED HIM IN ITS LETTER OF 5 APRIL 1982 THAT THE APPLICATION HE HAD SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO VACANCY NOTICE NO CJ 149/81 COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED SINCE HE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR TRANSFER OR FOR PROMOTION . 14 HE CONTENDS THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WAS THEREFORE WRONG TO BASE ITS DECISIONS ON ARTICLES 45 AND 46 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . IT WAS NOT A QUESTION OF PROMOTION BUT OF RECRUITMENT IN ANOTHER CAPACITY , NAMELY AS A LAWYER-REVISER . HE CONSIDERS THAT HE MUST , IN ANY EVENT , BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN RECRUITED AT THE OUTSET AS A LAWYER-REVISER AND THAT ARTICLE 31 ( 2 ) ( B ) AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 32 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS MUST BE APPLIED TO HIS CASE . CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE III OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IS ENTITLED ' ' RECRUITMENT ' ' AND COMPRISES ARTICLES 27 TO 34 . IT FOLLOWS THAT THE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES IN AN INTERNAL COMPETITION ARE NOT PROMOTED BUT RECRUITED UNDER ARTICLE 29 ( 1 ) ( B ). 15 IT IS FIRST OF ALL NECESSARY TO RECALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ON WHICH THE APPLICANT RELIES . CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE III OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS DEALS WITH ' ' RECRUITMENT ' ' PROCEDURES WHILE CHAPTER 3 GOVERNS STAFF REPORTS , ADVANCEMENT TO A HIGHER STEP AND PROMOTION . ARTICLE 29 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT , EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF THE RECRUITMENT OF OFFICIALS IN GRADE A 1 OR A 2 AND IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES , THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY MUST FIRST CONSIDER , BEFORE FILLING A VACANT POST IN AN INSTITUTION , ( A ) WHETHER THE POST CAN BE FILLED BY PROMOTION OR TRANSFER WITHIN THE INSTITUTION , ( B ) WHETHER TO HOLD COMPETITIONS INTERNAL TO THE INSTITUTION AND ( C ) WHAT APPLICATIONS FOR TRANSFER HAVE BEEN MADE BY OFFICIALS OF OTHER COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS AND THEN FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE FOR COMPETITIONS ON THE BASIS EITHER OF QUALIFICATIONS OR OF TESTS , OR OF BOTH QUALIFICATIONS AND TESTS . 16 ARTICLE 31 PROVIDES THAT THE CANDIDATES SELECTED ARE TO BE APPOINTED AS FOLLOWS : OFFICIALS IN CATEGORY A OR THE LANGUAGE SERVICE : TO THE STARTING GRADE OF THEIR CATEGORY OR SERVICE ; OFFICIALS IN OTHER CATEGORIES : TO THE STARTING GRADE FOR THE POST FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN RECRUITED . HOWEVER , PARAGRAPH ( 2 ) OF THE SAME ARTICLE ALLOWS THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO DEROGATE FROM THOSE PROVISIONS WITHIN CERTAIN LIMITS . 17 ARTICLE 45 , WHICH FORMS PART OF CHAPTER 3 , GOVERNS PROMOTION . IT PROVIDES THAT PROMOTION IS TO BE BY DECISION OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY . IT IS EFFECTED BY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICIAL TO THE NEXT HIGHER GRADE IN THE CATEGORY OR SERVICE TO WHICH HE BELONGS . TO BE PROMOTED , AN OFFICIAL MUST HAVE COMPLETED A MINIMUM PERIOD IN HIS GRADE . FOR OFFICIALS APPOINTED TO THE STARTING GRADE IN THEIR SERVICE OR CATEGORY , THAT PERIOD IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THEIR ESTABLISHMENT ; FOR OTHER OFFICIALS , IT IS TWO YEARS . PARAGRAPH ( 2 ) OF THE SAME ARTICLE PROVIDES THAT AN OFFICIAL MAY BE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE SERVICE TO ANOTHER OR PROMOTED FROM ONE CATEGORY TO ANOTHER ONLY ON THE BASIS OF A COMPETITION . 18 IT APPEARS FROM THE FACTS SET OUT ABOVE THAT , SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 45 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , IN APRIL 1982 THE APPLICANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION . HE HAD BEEN APPOINTED A PROBATIONARY OFFICIAL IN GRADE L/A 6 AS FROM 1 OCTOBER 1981 BY DECISIONS OF 11 AND 25 NOVEMBER 1981 . BEFORE BEING ESTABLISHED , HE HAD TO SERVE A PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF NINE MONTHS . EVEN AFTER COMPLETION OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD , AN OFFICIAL ELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION HAD TO COMPLETE A MINIMUM PERIOD IN HIS GRADE WHICH IN THE APPLICANT ' S CASE WAS TWO YEARS . 19 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 29 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , WHEN THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY INTENDS TO FILL A VACANT POST , IT MUST FIRST CONSIDER WHETHER THE POST CAN BE FILLED BY PROMOTION OR TRANSFER WITHIN THE INSTITUTION AND THEN WHETHER TO HOLD COMPETITIONS INTERNAL TO THE INSTITUTION . THE ORDER OF PREFERENCE THUS ESTABLISHED IS THE VERY EXPRESSION OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT RECRUITED OFFICIALS ARE ENTITLED TO REASONABLE CAREER PROSPECTS . 20 WHILE RECRUITMENT MARKS ENTRY INTO A CATEGORY OR A SERVICE OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS , PROMOTION GOVERNS THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE CAREER THUS BEGUN WITHIN THE CATEGORY OR SERVICE WHICH THE CANDIDATE HAS ENTERED . 21 THE DECISION OF 29 JUNE 1982 HAS THE EFFECT OF BOTH APPOINTING AND PROMOTING THE APPLICANT AT THE SAME TIME , ITS PREAMBLE REFERRING IN FACT TO ARTICLE 29 AND ARTICLES 45 AND 46 . IT APPLIES THE RULES FOR GRADING OFFICIALS TO THE CASE OF AN OFFICIAL APPOINTED TO NEW DUTIES AS A LAWYER-REVISER AS A RESULT OF HIS HAVING SUCCEEDED IN INTERNAL COMPETITION NO CJ 149/81 . IT THUS CONCERNS THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE APPLICANT ' S CAREER . 22 IT IS TRUE THAT , IF ARTICLES 31 AND 32 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS HAD BEEN APPLICABLE TO HIS CASE AND NOT ARTICLES 45 AND 46 , THE DEROGATIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 31 ( 2 ) AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 32 MIGHT HAVE BEEN APPLICABLE TO HIM . IT MUST BE POINTED OUT HOWEVER THAT THOSE DEROGATIONS ARE TO BE APPLIED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY , ALTHOUGH THAT AUTHORITY COULD NOT REFUSE TO APPLY THEM TO THE APPLICANT IF IT WAS PROVED THAT THIS WAS THE CONSISTENT PRACTICE OF THE INSTITUTION . IN THIS REGARD , IT APPEARS THAT SINCE 1973 NO LAWYER-REVISER IN CAREER BRACKET L/A 5 - L/A 4 EMPLOYED AT THE COURT OF JUSTICE HAS BEEN DIRECTLY RECRUITED FROM OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS AND THAT THE COURT ' S ESTABLISHED PRACTICE IS TO TREAT THE APPOINTMENT OF A SERVING OFFICIAL TO THE NEXT HIGHER CAREER BRACKET FOLLOWING AN INTERNAL COMPETITION AS PROMOTION AND TO APPLY THE RULE CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 46 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IN SUCH A CASE . 23 THAT PRACTICE DOES NOT INFRINGE ANY PROVISION OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . IT IS IN THE INTERESTS OF SOUND ADMINISTRATION FOR THE INSTITUTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER A POST CAN BE FILLED BY WAY OF AN INTERNAL COMPETITION . IN SUCH A CASE THE PROCEDURE CHOSEN TO FILL THE VACANT POST MUST BE EQUATED WITH THE PROMOTION PROCEDURE ; IN ANY EVENT THE OFFICIAL ' ' PROMOTED ' ' THROUGH THE PROCEDURE CANNOT BE TREATED MORE FAVOURABLY UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS THAN AN OFFICIAL WHO HAS COMPLETED THE REQUIRED MINIMUM PERIOD OF SERVICE . 24 IT FOLLOWS FROM THOSE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS ARE RIGHT TO TREAT AN OFFICIAL ' S APPOINTMENT TO A HIGHER GRADE FOLLOWING AN INTERNAL COMPETITION AS PROMOTION AND IN THAT REGARD TO APPLY THE RULES OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ON PROMOTION PROPERLY SO CALLED . 25 THE APPLICANT IS THEREFORE WRONG IN COMPLAINING IN HIS FIRST SUBMISSION THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ERRED IN APPLYING THE STAFF REGULATIONS . THAT SUBMISSION MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED . THE SECOND SUBMISSION 26 THE APPLICANT STATES THAT IN DECEMBER 1979 THE COURT PUBLISHED A NOTICE OF COMPETITION IN VARIOUS GREEK NEWSPAPERS WITH A VIEW TO RECRUITING A HEAD OF DEPARTMENT AND LAWYER-REVISERS AND TRANSLATORS OF GREEK MOTHER TONGUE . THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION AND IN THE SECTION FOR INDICATING THE POST APPLIED FOR HE PUT ' ' CHIEF OR EQUIVALENT ' ' . THE COURT OFFERED HIM A CONTRACT AS A MEMBER OF THE AUXILIARY STAFF IN CATEGORY A II , CLASS 4 . HE COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS BY TELEPHONE AND IN A LETTER DATED 29 JULY 1980 IN REPLY TO WHICH HE RECEIVED TOWARDS THE END OF AUGUST 1980 A LETTER DATED 25 AUGUST 1980 IN WHICH HE WAS ASSURED THAT , ONCE THE 1981 BUDGET WAS ADOPTED , ' ' THE BEST LAWYER-LINGUISTS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE APPOINTED AS REVISERS ( GRADE L/A 5 ) ' ' . HE CONTENDS THAT HE WAS THUS LEGITIMATELY ENTITLED TO EXPECT THAT AFTER THE INITIAL INTERIM PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS , WHICH WOULD BE A PROBATIONARY PERIOD OR TEST OR BOTH , HE WOULD BE ESTABLISHED AS A LAWYER-REVISER . HE THINKS THAT AT THE END OF COMPETITION NO CJ 14/81 HE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED AS A LAWYER-REVISER ( CATEGORY L/A 5 - L/A 4 ). THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT THE COURT THUS ACTED IN BREACH OF THE LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION WHICH THAT LETTER HAD GIVEN HIM . 27 THAT SUBMISSION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . THE LETTER OF 25 AUGUST 1980 WAS MEANT TO ALLAY THE MISGIVINGS OF THE APPLICANT WHO WAS DISAPPOINTED AT HAVING BEEN ENGAGED AS A MEMBER OF THE AUXILIARY STAFF IN CATEGORY A II , CLASS 4 , BY POINTING OUT THAT THAT SITUATION WAS ONLY TEMPORARY OWING TO THE BUDGETARY SITUATION AT THE TIME . HOWEVER , THE LETTER OFFERED THE PROSPECT OF A CAREER IN THE NEW LANGUAGE DIVISION ONCE BUDGET FUNDS HAD BEEN APPROPRIATED . THAT LETTER WAS THEREFORE ONLY INFORMATIVE IN NATURE AND DID NOT COMMIT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO APPOINT THE APPLICANT TO THE DESIRED GRADE . THE THIRD SUBMISSION 28 THE APPLICANT POINTS OUT THAT WHEN THE COURT PREVIOUSLY APPOINTED ENGLISH- AND DANISH-LANGUAGE LAWYER-REVISERS IN EXACTLY THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES AS THE APPLICANT IT TOOK ACCOUNT OF THEIR PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE , TRAINING AND AGE AND APPOINTED THEM , DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE , TO A GRADE OR STEP HIGHER THAN THEIR STARTING GRADE OR STEP . IN SUPPORT OF THAT ARGUMENT , THE APPLICANT REFERS TO THE CASE OF A LAWYER-REVISER WHO , ACCORDING TO HIM , WAS APPOINTED TO GRADE L/A 4 . 29 THAT SUBMISSION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED EITHER . THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAS STATED , WITHOUT BEING CONTRADICTED BY THE APPLICANT , THAT THE CONSISTENT PRACTICE OF THE COURT HAS BEEN TO APPOINT LAWYER-LINGUISTS TO GRADE L/A 6 , WHICH WAS THE GRADE GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT WHEN HE WAS APPOINTED AS A LAWYER-LINGUIST BY THE DECISIONS OF 11 AND 25 NOVEMBER 1981 . THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SUCCEEDED IN SHOWING THAT HIS ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE . IT EMERGED AT THE HEARING THAT THE LAWYER-REVISER TO WHOM HE WAS REFERRING WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL BUT A TEMPORARY SERVANT WHOSE SITUATION IS SUBJECT TO DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS . THE FOURTH SUBMISSION 30 THE APPLICANT RELIES ON DECISIONS OF OTHER COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS REGARDING THE CLASSIFICATION OF APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 31 AND 32 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . HE CONTENDS THAT IN ADOPTING THE CONTESTED DECISIONS THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ACTED OUT OF STEP WITH THE APPOINTING AUTHORITIES OF OTHER INSTITUTIONS . IT IMPROPERLY APPLIED CRITERIA WHICH WERE UNFAMILIAR AND IN ANY EVENT UNFAVOURABLE TO HIM , WHICH CONSTITUTED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HIM IN RELATION TO HIS COLLEAGUES IN OTHER INSTITUTIONS DOING THE SAME WORK AND A BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF FAIRNESS WHICH IS RECOGNIZED AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMUNITY LEGAL ORDER . 31 THIS SUBMISSION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED EITHER . THE CASES MENTIONED BY THE APPLICANT CONCERN ONLY MEASURES TAKEN AT THE TIME OF INITIAL RECRUITMENT AND ARE THEREFORE IRRELEVANT IN THE CASE OF AN APPOINTMENT MADE AFTER AN INTERNAL COMPETITION . THE FIFTH , SIXTH AND SEVENTH SUBMISSIONS 32 IN THESE SUBMISSIONS THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF SOUND ADMINISTRATION REQUIRED THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF ALL THE FACTORS ON WHICH IT MIGHT BASE ITS DECISION . IT DID NOT TAKE ACCOUNT OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN HIS PERSONAL FILE , PARTICULARLY INFORMATION REGARDING HIS TRAINING IN GENERAL AND HIS SPECIAL EXPERIENCE . BY NOT APPLYING ARTICLE 31 ( 2 ) ( B ) AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 32 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY PUT AN OFFICIAL ALREADY IN THE SERVICE OF THE COURT IN A WORSE POSITION THAN AN OFFICIAL WHO HAD JUST ENTERED ITS SERVICE . IN ADOPTING THE CONTESTED DECISION THE COURT DEPARTED FROM THE PRACTICE WHICH IT HAD PREVIOUSLY FOLLOWED REGARDING THE AWARD OF ADDITIONAL SENIORITY TO THE APPOINTED OFFICIAL DEPENDING ON HIS QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE AND THUS ACTED IN BREACH OF ANY INTERNAL INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT WHICH MAY BE IN FORCE REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 31 AND 32 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . 33 THOSE ARGUMENTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . STARTING FROM THE VIEW THAT SINCE HIS APPOINTMENT RESULTED FROM A COMPETITION THE COURT COULD REGARD HIM AS HAVING BEEN PROMOTED , THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE COURT COULD NOT APPLY THE RULES ON PROMOTION IN HIS CASE . THOSE ARGUMENTS WERE DEALT WITH IN CONNECTION WITH THE FIRST SUBMISSION . THE FIFTH , SIXTH AND SEVENTH SUBMISSIONS MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED . 34 SINCE THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN ALL HIS SUBMISSIONS , THE APPLICATION MUST BE DISMISSED . COSTS 35 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . HOWEVER , UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE INSTITUTIONS ARE TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS IN PROCEEDINGS BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES . ON THOSE GROUNDS , THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER ) HEREBY : 1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION ; 2 . ORDERS THE PARTIES TO PAY THEIR OWN COSTS . © European Communities, 2001 All rights reserved BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1984/C2183.html