This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 61983CC0025
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 23 February 1984. # Adam Buick v Commission of the European Communities. # Official - Reclassification. # Case 25/83.
Opinia rzecznika generalnego Lenz przedstawione w dniu 23 lutego 1984 r.
Adam Buick przeciwko Komisji Wspólnot Europejskich.
Urzędnik.
Sprawa 25/83.
Opinia rzecznika generalnego Lenz przedstawione w dniu 23 lutego 1984 r.
Adam Buick przeciwko Komisji Wspólnot Europejskich.
Urzędnik.
Sprawa 25/83.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:1984:75
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL LENZ
DELIVERED ON23 FEBRUARY 1984 ( 1 )
Mr President
Members of the Court,
A — |
Adam Buick, the applicant in this staff case, seeks to obtain an improvement of his classification in the starting grade. He started work for the Commission in January 1974 as a probationary official in Grade A 7, step 3, and was promoted to Grade A 6 in January 1978. In a memorandum dated 27 April 1981 the applicant asked to be reclassified in Grade A 6, step 1, with retroactive effect, relying on the Commission's “Decision on the Criteria applicable to Grade and Step Classification upon recruitment” (hereinafter referred to as “grading criteria”) dated June 1973 and distributed in March 1981 by the Directorate General for Personnel and Administration. He argued that he satisfied the requirement of at least eight years' practical experience laid down for such an appointment in the upper grade. In June 1965, four years after the completion of his advanced secondary studies, he had obtained his university degree. He had been in relevant employment since September 1965. He claims that he therefore had eight years of practical experience behind him when he started work for the Commission. The Commission's Grading Committee replied in a memorandum dated 11 May 1981 that in the case of a short course of university studies of three years such as the applicant had taken, the first year of employment following the award of the degree is regarded as a fourth year of study. Thus only the period from June 1966 to 1 January 1974, amounting to seven and a half years, could be taken into account as practical experience. There were therefore no grounds for recommending a reclassification. The applicant then lodged a complaint through official channels in due form and within the period prescribed. In it he explained that he had left school in December 1961 after the entrance examination to Oxford University and had begun his university studies in October 1962. Therefore his employment since December 1965 should be credited as practical experience. The applicant's complaint was rejected in a decision of the appointing authority dated 23 November 1982, and on 16 February 1983 he brought an action for its annulment and for an order that the Commission should review the matter in accordance with the expected judgment of the Court. He claims in the alternative that the defendant should be ordered to pay the costs in their entirety. |
B — |
On those claims, my opinion is as follows : 1. Admissibility The admissibility of the action might be challenged by saying that what the applicant is really seeking is the annulment of the classification in the starting grade, which he was given in 1974 and which thereby became definitive. However, as the Court has held in judgments of 1 December 1983 (Case 190/82 Adam P. H. Blomefield v Commission of the European Communities [1983] ECR 3981, and Case 343/82 Christos Michael v Commission of the European Communities [1983] ECR 4023, the publication of the grading criteria in March 1981 is to be regarded as a new fact which causes the period prescribed under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations to start to run afresh. The appointing authority itself regarded the applicant's request for a reclassification under Article 90 (1) of the Staff Regulations as admissible. Since the applicant has complied with the timelimits laid down for complaints and appeals under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, the action must be considered admissible. 2. Substance The decision now at issue, in which the applicant was refused reclassification with retroactive effect in Grade A 6, must be annulled on grounds of illegality if the appointing authority has departed, to the prejudice of the applicant, from the rules which it has laid down for itself for the assessment of training and practical experience, to the extent to which these are compatible with the Staff Regulations.
3. Costs In view of this finding, both parties should in principle be ordered to bear their own costs under Articles 69 (2) and 70 of the Rules of Procedure. However, the applicant has made an alternative claim for a departure from that provision as to costs, relying on the judgment in Michael [1983] ECR 4023. I do not, however, see any occasion for this, since he must face the objection that his claim, which is based on a doubtful part of the text, is on the face of it incompatible with the wording of other sections of the grading criteria and the purpose of the Staff Regulations. |
C — |
In conclusion, I therefore propose that the application be dismissed and that the parties be ordered to bear their own costs. |
( 1 ) Translated from the German.