(a)

In the legal interpretation, the criterion which reads ‘able to translate particularly difficult texts’ should give the least difficulty. It is apparent from this wording that it is not necessary that a reviser-translator should actually and permanently be given particularly difficult translations. On the contrary, it is enough that he should have the ability to carry out such work. I am further inclined to accept in this respect that certain criteria suggested by the applicant may be used for the solution of the question, that is to say, to speak of particularly difficult translations every time the translations concern new spheres or complicated technical matters, or when their difficult nature requires the services of specialized institutions.

Nevertheless the difficulties begin when, as in the present case, the High Authority disputes that the applicant is actually competent to carry out particularly difficult translations, and when it disputes that it has actually given him duties of this nature. I do not think we can surmount these difficulties on our own initiative, for example by endeavouring to obtain an idea of the nature of the applicant's work by checking his translations. Here, only an expert's opinion can help us. For the moment we can, however, leave open the question whether in the final outcome such an expert's opinion is necessary.

(b)

It is the same with the question whether the applicant is in fact an “expert translator”.

As regards first of all the legal interpretation of this concept, the applicant considers it expedient to refer to the qualifications required by the High Authority itself of a translator (‘experienced translator’ of career bracket L/A6-L/A5) who was nominated to the post of reviser after having taken part in the competition mentioned previously. Moreover, to clarify this concept, the applicant also considers it useful to contrast, in a particular way, the duties and criteria of the expert translator with those of the experienced translator. I have doubts on both methods of interpretation. The evaluation arrived at on an experienced translator, in the case mentioned, essentially amounts to nothing more than the evaluation of the personal abilities and the zeal of these candidates. As such, this evaluation can only to a limited degree provide objective criteria for the definition of the duties of an expert translator. According to the applicant, the duties of an experienced translator and of an expert translator are to be distinguished according to the manner in which the linguistic knowledge and other abilities of a translator have been acquired: an experienced translator attains them in a empiric manner, whilst the expert translator must have a corresponding theoretical and practical training before entering the service; this argument does not convince me either. It is obvious that the Staff Regulations reject such a distinction in principle and that Article 5 places the emphasis only upon the knowledge of an official and not upon the way in which this was acquired. Lastly, it appears doubtful to me that the expression ‘expert’, as the applicant claims, is intended to denote the requirement of a specialization going beyond level of the experienced translator in one or several particular fields, as for example industrial technology. I am inclined rather to follow the High Authority's view that the qualities of an expert in this career bracket are primarily to be judged according to purely linguistic standards, that is to say, an expert translator must be considerably above the average level of the experienced translator so far as the knowledge of languages is concerned in the matter of style, precision of expression, accurate interpretation and rendering of the meaning of foreign texts. It is at least necessary to ask what justification there is for describing translators in the field of industrial technology as expert translators, whilst denying the same tide to translators possessing special knowledge in other fields such as medicine and law.

But in the final analysis all these questions may remain in suspense, because on this point also, although the High Authority has accepted that the applicant has particular knowledge in the sphere of industrial technology, we are faced with a dispute on a question of fact which cannot reliably be decided without the assistance of experts.

(c)

In consequence it only remains to attempt to decide the case in the context of an examination of the concept of ‘reviser’ which is also a part of the definition of career bracket L/A5-L/A4.

If I have properly understood the applicant, he has abandoned his original argument that a reviser in the sense of the said definition is also a translator whose translations as a general rule are not revised and who is so to speak his own reviser. As far as the facts are concerned, the High Authority disputes the applicant's assertion that his activities come within this category (and its view is confirmed by a text submitted by the applicant himself). Besides, the High Authority rightly emphasizes that the mere fact of not having a document revised may be explained not only by the quality of the translation, but also by other circumstances such as, for example, the necessity of obtaining a translation in a short time, or the fact that for internal meetings a rough draft translation may be sufficient. In respect of the concept of revision. it is indisputable that one cannot speak of revision unless the work of another is checked, and not when the translator undertakes the necessary correction of his own translations, a task which must be regarded as an integral part of the work of translation itself.

Next it is clear that the definition of the career bracket of reviser-translator must not be understood as meaning that the ability alone to be a reviser is sufficient. On the contrary, the wording of the definition obliges me to conclude that it is necessary that such work should actually be done. Were it otherwise, one could have chosen here also, as in the case of the third criterion ability to translate difficult texts — the formula ‘ability to undertake work of revision’.

In consequence it only remains to consider whether the applicant can succeed in his endeavour to attach to the concept of ‘reviser’ in the definition of the duties of a reviser-translator, a particular meaning which plainly deviates from the concept of a reviser. The applicant proposes to do this by relying on the criteria of expert translator. According to him it would be possible in consequence to speak of a reviser's activity even when translators specialized in certain matters occasionally advise their colleagues, even the revisers, and, should the occasion arise, improve their translations with the help of their special technical knowledge.

I do not see how it is possible to follow the applicant in this attempted interpretation. What must be decisive is that in the disputed definition only the concept of ‘reviser’ is used, and without restriction or addition. Given that as a general rule the definition of posts describes different duties by means of different concepts, or at least distinguishes them by extra information added to general concepts, it appears to me that it is only permissible to understand the concept of ‘reviser’ in the sense in which it is generally used. In consequence, it must involve an activity which has as its object the comprehensive revision and checking of a translation done by another person from the liguistic and technical points of view. According to this argument, what distinguishes the reviser-translator from the ordinary reviser is the fact that the work of revision does not take up more than a part of his time, and that the official in question is given during the rest of the time particularly difficult translations or during that time carries out the functions of an expert translator.

One may regret this manner of defining a career bracket and regret above all the fact that the High Authority has barred to particularly well-qualified translators, who are not simultaneously engaged in revision, the possibility of being promoted to Grade A4. We must however state that the Court is quite unable to criticize the definition of posts itself which to a great extent arises from the discretionary power of the High Authority.