1.

For a declaration that in his capacity as accounting officer he is under direct and exclusive authority of the Commission and must be put on the same level as the Directors-General having the powers of an authorizing officer;

2.

For a declaration that the decision of the Commission of 30 July 1968, appointing the applicant accounting officer, accordingly amended the decision of 21 May 1968 whereby the applicant was appointed Head of a Division forming part of the Directorate for the Operational Budget and Finance;

3.

A declaration to the effect that the applicant must be classified in Grade Al with effect from 30 July 1968.

1. 

The least likely to succeed is the attempt to evaluate the applicant's duties solely on the basis of the Commission's definition of basic posts. As a standard of assessment this table, which we have already met in other proceedings, offers only very general criteria with consequently a large area of discretion in application precisely in relation to the higher grades. It justifies the general conclusion that, considered in the abstract, these criteria are scarcely adequate to justify a finding that the Commission misused its discretionary power.

In the present case it must be admitted that the powers of the accounting officer of the Commission in the implementation of the budget (that is, as regards the collection of revenue, payment of expenses and the management and preservation of the Commission's funds and assets) are very considerable. The same is true of his duties in maintaining the inventory of Community property, the establishment of a record of its assets and liabilities and the inventory for income and expenditure. I refer the Court here to Articles 22, 26, 27, 35, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of the Financial Regulation of 30 July 1968 (OJ L 199). It is also made clear by the provisions in the Financial Regulation to the effect that the accounting officer is responsible for more than purely formal verification. He is expressly — in Article 26 — enjoined to secure the safekeeping of the Community's rights, and Article 43 says that he is to suspend payment in the event of substantive errors, or of the validity of the discharge being contested. There is a corresponding special provision (Article 49) to the effect that the accounting officer shall render himself liable to disciplinary action and, where appropriate, to payment of compensation as regards payments made by him. He may also insure himself against the risks arising under Article 49, at the cost, in part, of the Commission.

Nevertheless, and in spite of the fact that after the merger of the executives the extent of the duties of the accounting officer was considerably increased, the above considerations do not justify the conclusion that the Commission's appointment of the accounting officer to Grade A3 and his classification in the administrative hierarchy were wrong. The references in the Financial Regulation to the nature of the duties of the accounting officer are not sufficient for this, not least because the Commission's definition of basic posts mentions the existence of comparable powers of verification in lower grades.

2. 

In fact in all cases such as the present the most likely source of support for the applicant is to be found in a comparison with the grade given to officials who perform similar duties. The applicant has made such a comparison on several levels. The most important consideration in his opinion is the position in the hierarchy of the authorizing officers and the financial controllers, both concerned with the implementation of the Operational Budget. Since these are classified in Grade Al, the accounting officer should be graded likewise, since his duties are a complement to the powers of the authorizing officers and the financial controllers. Let us see, therefore, what the truth of this matter really is.

3. 

A third argument of the applicant relies on the separation of the functions of authorizing officers from those of accounting officers in the provision of the Financial Regulation and on the necessary independence of accounting officers in relation to authorizing officers and to the financial controller. Furthermore this is said to have been repeatedly emphasized by the Audit Board. Thus the accounting officer should be subject to the direct authority of the Commission and be responsible to it. Since the applicant, however, was only entrusted with the tasks set out in the Financial Regulation, it would be incompatible with the abovementioned requirements to incorporate his administrative unit into a Directorate-General and a Directorate.

It can be said in support of this argument that it is certainly correct in its initial premise. This is borne out by Article 22 of the Financial Regulation and by the fact that on presenting his accounts the accounting officer obtains a discharge directly from the Commission. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the applicant should be classified in Grade Al. His independence can be secured even without such a grading so as to comply effectively with the requirements of the Financial Regulation. This was in fact done in the Commission's decision appointing the applicant as accounting officer. Article 2 of that decision states expressly: ‘In the performance of their duties the accounting officer and the assistant accounting officers shall be responsible directly to the Commission’. Strictly speaking this can only be understood to mean that officials in the higher grades, and even those in the Directorate-General for the Budget, have no power to issue directions to the applicant as regards the performance of his duties as accounting officer. To this extent the present case bears a certain resemblance to Case 28/64 ( 2 ), which concerned the assessment of the duties of the financial controller of the Council of Ministers. On that occasion the Court of Justice stressed that the independence of the applicant and the fact that even measures taken by very senior officials were subject to review by him was irrelevant to the classification of his duties, and, in addition, that the fact that the applicant is placed directly under the authority of a Director-General is of no significance. The same— mutatis mutandis —must apply in the present case.

Lastly it should be emphasized, as the Commission has done, that in relation to the administrative structure and the organization of posts within the Commission individual officials can enjoy only very limited opportunities for making complaints and for submitting them for review by the Court. In principle, the applicant could only plead on this point that according to the definition of posts in the Commission the only possibility for officials directly subordinate to the Commission is to be classified in Grade Al. But the very wording of the abovementioned definition shows this to be incorrect. According to this it is possible in individual cases for even Grade A2 officials to be directly subordinate to the Commission. In addition to this, however, it should be stressed that naturally the Commission in no way infringes the provisions of the Staff Regulations if it makes other departments and administrative units directly subject to itself. Accordingly, the applicant's references to the necessary independence of the accounting officer and his direct responsibility to the Commission in fact do not provide any arguments in support of his claim to be classified in Grade Al.

4. 

The same goes for the applicant's argument that, within the EEC Commission, the division of which he is in charge, together with the Financial, Treasury and Accounts Departments constituted an administrative unit subject to a Director-General.

T his argument is convincingly refuted Dy the Commission with the statement that in fact the administrative unit in the EEC Commission referred to by the applicant embraced other services as well (to be precise: the Divisions for Budget and for Financial Control). And if the comparison fails at this point, it is clear that reference to the administrative structure of the former EEC Commission serves no purpose with regard to judging the merits of the present case.

5. 

The last observation to be made on the applicant's claim it that none of the earlier executives appear to have accorded their accounting officer the rank of an A1 official. The highest grade was in fact only A3. In view of the varying range of the duties conferred on them, however, this remark can certainly not amount to a conclusive argument. But it does have at least some value as a general indication, in the same way as the classification of the corresponding duties by other institutions of the Communities.

6. 

It only remains for me to sum up. My opinion is that the applicant cannot successfully claim that the Commission has a duty, because it has appointed him as accounting officer, to raise his classification by two grades to Grade Al. The application must therefore be dismissed in its entirety as unfounded. According to the provisions of the Rules of Procedure the applicant must therefore bear his own costs.