1.

It is not disputed that the description of the duties and the qualifications required of the applicant answer to the basic post and corresponding career bracket C 2-C 3. Moreover, the applicant has been in receipt, from at least 1973, of the fixed allowance provided by the second sentence of Article 4a of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations (in the version adopted by Regulation No 914/78 of 3 May 1978), the grant of which is linked to the performance of duties as shorthand-typist and copy-typist; in the event of a change of duties the fixed allowance would cease to be paid.

The “basic posts and corresponding career brackets in each category and in the Language Service as provided for in Article 5 (4) of the Staff Regulations” (Annex I to the Staff Regulations) and the description of the duties and qualifications required by each basic post and determined by each institution, are intended not merely to enable the administration to require of an official the performance of duties which correspond to his grading and to the description of his duties but also to protect officials against unreasonable demands being made upon them by the administration (judgment of 27 July 1973, Leandro Tontodonativ Commission of the European Communities [1973] ECR 779, at p. 785, paragraph 8) where the Court held: “... the administration cannot compel an official to fulfil tasks on a level higher than his grade ...”. Apart from a temporary posting an official may not be called upon to occupy a post in a career bracket in his category or grade which is higher than his substantive career bracket (Article 7 (2) of the Staff Regulations). At most the fact that he agrees to perform duties corresponding to a grade higher than his own may be a factor to be borne in mind in connection with promotion, but does not give him the right to be reclassified (judgment of 19 March 1975, Gijsbertus Van Reenen v Commission of the European Communities [1975] ECR445, at p. 455, paragraph 6; Lucienne de Roubaix, née De Leye v Commission of the European Communities [1978] ECR 1081, at p. 1089, paragraph 17).

Apart from a temporary posting, the only means by which an official may duly perform duties on a higher level than those assigned to him is to receive promotion on the basis of a competition or otherwise.

The file shows that the applicant applied to take part in a competition organized in 1975 on the basis of qualifications and tests with a view to constituting a reserve list of assistant translators in Grades A 7-A 8 of the Language Service but she was not admitted to the competition on the ground that she did not have the necessary qualifications either as regards formal qualifications or practical experience. She made no complaint on that occasion.

Furthermore, in her letter of 22 April 1980, the applicant stated “that she in no way disputes her substantive classification in Category C and that she does not intend to claim the benefit of the rights enjoyed by translators duly classified in Category L/A”.

Bearing in mind the particularly laudatory assessments which the applicant received in her periodic reports for the periods 1969 to 1971, 1971 to 1973, 1973 to 1975 and 1975 to 1977, it is very surprising that whilst the applicant was frequently transferred, she never applied to take part in a competition for a post corresponding to the new basic posts of secretarial assistant and administrative assistant classified in Category B, posts which were expressly created by Regulation (EEC) No 1473/72 of 30 June 1972 which was intended to give certain classes of officials who had or might have no chance of advancing beyond the grades in Category C, the opportunity to be promoted to grades in Category B.

Whatever may be the reason for that, I can only state that Article 24 of the Staff Regulations in no way confers the rights which the applicant in her application requests you to recognize in her case. The fact that she was able to acquire training as a translator and that the translation duties were carried out by her de facto to the full satisfaction of her superiors and satisfied a growing need within the departments cannot confer on her an absolute right to continue performing those specialized duties.

2.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations are as follows :

“It [the Communities] shall facilitate such further training and instruction for officials as is compatible with the proper functioning of the service and is in accordance with its own interests.

Such training and instruction shall be taken into account for purposes of promotion in their careers.”

Assuming that the obligation to assist (Article 24), which the applicant in her reply claims was not observed, may be construed as broadly as the applicant claims, I consider that the administration has satisfied such obligation to the extent permitted by its own interests.

The doctor treating the applicant certified on 22 October 1979 that “she was fit to resume her duties provided that the nature of the work offered to her corresponds to her qualifications. If not, there are fears that her psychological state may deteriorate again”. Then, on 2 January 1980 he stated “the duties of a translator are alone capable of ensuring her mental stability”.

The Commission appears to have followed that recommendation by informing the applicant in November 1979, through the intermediary of the scientific assistant to the Directorate-General, that she would be assigned to the library for one half of the normal working day and to urgent translation duties for the other half of the day. The Commission argued convincingly that it would not be compatible with the efficient functioning of the departments if the applicant were to undertake translation duties for more than one half of her time. On the other hand, it is only by totally ignoring the important correlation between basic posts and career brackets that it is possible to go further and assign to the applicant exclusively translation duties, as in the past.

3.

The lawyer acting for the applicant states “within each category, working conditions, special duties and privileges acquired by the official constitute an indisputable right such that any alteration made unilaterally by the authorities in those conditions, special duties or privileges which has the effect of restricting them or making adherence to them more difficult constitutes a wrongful act”.

That allegation seems to me to be totally without foundation. The applicant had not acquired any prerogative within her category. To require her to resume duties corresponding to her classification subject to the arrangements which were finally proposed to her, does not amount to a “unilateral” measure of such a kind as to impose any liability on the Commission.

I might add that consistent with the preoccupations which led the Commission to set up a “medico-social sector”, the applicant's case seems to be much more a matter for that sector than for the Invalidity Committee. The

Commission, it seems to me, has made a step in that direction by offering to assign the applicant for one half of her time to translation duties; the applicant should make use of the opportunity offered before the Invalidity Committee issues its conclusions in her case.

I am of the opinion that the application should be dismissed and that the parties should bear their own costs.