1 BY APPLICATION RECEIVED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 1 DECEMBER 1982 HORST W . STEINFORT , AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , BROUGHT AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATION THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO BE PROMOTED TO GRADE A 2 .
2 THE APPLICANT ENTERED THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE COMMISSION IN 1961 AS A PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATOR IN GRADE A 4 AND FROM 1964 TO 1967 PERFORMED THE DUTIES OF CHEF DE CABINET TO MR MARGULIES , A MEMBER OF THE EAEC COMMISSION . AT THE END OF THAT SECONDMENT , DURING WHICH HE OCCUPIED A GRADE A 2 POST , HE WAS ASSIGNED TO THE EAEC DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR RESEARCH AND THEN IN 1968 PROMOTED TO GRADE A 3 IN DIRECTORATE-GENERAL XIII OF THE COMMISSION , INFORMATION MARKET AND INNOVATION . BY LETTER DATED 18 FEBRUARY 1982 HE REQUESTED THAT THE COMMISSION PROMOTE HIM TO GRADE A 2 ON THE BASIS OF A DECISION TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION IN JULY 1981 .
3 SINCE THE APPLICATION IS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY BASED ON THE SAID DECISION OF JULY 1981 IT IS APPROPRIATE TO REFER FIRST OF ALL TO ITS TERMS . THE DECISION , WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED , APPEARS IN THE MINUTES OF THE SITTING OF THE COMMISSION ON 28 JULY 1981 . UNDER THE HEADING ' ' REINSTATEMENT ON PROMOTION OF OFFICIALS SECONDED TO A MEMBER ' S OFFICE ' ' THE MINUTES READ AS FOLLOWS :
' ' ON A PROPOSAL FROM THE PRESIDENT AND MR O ' KENNEDY THE COMMISSION ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING DECISION :
1 . ' A ' OFFICIALS PROMOTED TO ANOTHER CAREER BRACKET DURING A PERIOD OF SECONDMENT TO A MEMBER ' S OFFICE SHALL REJOIN THE DEPARTMENTS IN WHICH PROMOTION IS ACCORDED THEM ' ' (. . . REINTEGRERONT LEUR SERVICE OU LA PROMOTION LEUR EST ASSUREE . . .) ' ' WITHIN 3 MONTHS IN THE CASE OF PROMOTION TO A 1 , A 2 OR A 3 OR AT THE END OF THE COMMISSION ' S TERM OF OFFICE IN THE CASE OF PROMOTION TO A 5 .
2 . IN THE CASE OF PROMOTIONS WITHIN THE SAME CAREER BRACKET AND PROMOTIONS TO A 5 . . . ' '
4 IN THE APPLICANT ' S VIEW THE DECISION MEANS THAT OFFICIALS OF CATEGORY A WHO ARE SECONDED TO A MEMBER ' S OFFICE ARE ENTITLED TO PROMOTION WITHIN A PARTICULAR PERIOD AFTER THEIR REINSTATEMENT IN THEIR ORIGINAL DEPARTMENT AND THAT PERIOD IS THREE MONTHS IN THE CASE OF PROMOTION TO GRADE A 2 . THAT INTERPRETATION OF THE DECISION IS CONFIRMED BY THE CLAUSE ' ' OU LA PROMOTION LEUR EST ASSUREE ' ' AND IN PARTICULAR BY THE WORD ' ' ASSUREE ' ' WHICH WOULD HAVE NO MEANING IF FORMER STAFF OF A MEMBER ' S OFFICE WERE NOT TO BE PROMOTED .
5 IN THE VIEW OF THE COMMISSION THE DECISION RELATES NOT TO THE RIGHT TO PROMOTION OF OFFICIALS WHO HAVE BEEN SECONDED TO A MEMBER ' S OFFICE BUT TO THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH OFFICIALS PROMOTED WHILE ON SECONDMENT SHOULD BE REINSTATED . THAT SUCH IS ITS PURPORT , AS APPEARS INTER ALIA FROM THE WORDING OF THE DECISION AND FROM THE FACT THAT IT HAS NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED AS BEING OF A PURELY INTERNAL NATURE , IS DEMONSTRATED BY THE NOTE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION AND FROM MR O ' KENNEDY WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE DECISION .
THAT NOTE CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE :
' ' SINCE PROMOTION TO GRADES A 1 , A 2 AND A 3 ENTAILS THE OCCUPATION OF HIGHLY RESPONSIBLE POSTS WHICH IT IS ESSENTIAL TO FILL SPEEDILY FOR THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE DEPARTMENTS , IT SEEMS DESIRABLE TO SHORTEN THE PERIODS AGREED ON IN 1979 AND TO MAKE THEM 3 MONTHS FOR ALL THE GRADES UNDER CONSIDERATION . ' '
6 THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE COMMISSION MUST BE FOLLOWED . THE ARGUMENT FAVOURED BY THE APPLICANT WOULD RENDER THE MAIN CLAUSE IN THE DECISION AT ISSUE ( ' ' OFFICIALS . . . SHALL REJOIN THE DEPARTMENTS . . . WITHIN 3 MONTHS . . . ' ' ) MEANINGLESS . MOREOVER , SINCE THAT HYPOTHESIS WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF CONFERRING RETROACTIVELY PROMOTION TO HIGH GRADES ON ALL OFFICIALS WHO HAVE BEEN SECONDED TO A MEMBER ' S OFFICE IT WOULD DEPART FROM THE PROCEDURE UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS GOVERNING PROMOTION WITHOUT REGARD FOR THE DIFFICULTY OF FINDING SUFFICIENT POSTS CORRESPONDING TO SUCH GRADES .
7 THE OTHER COMPLAINTS MADE BY THE APPLICANT , SUCH AS DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT AND MISUSE OF POWERS BY THE COMMISSION , ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE TO WARRANT CONSIDERATION .
8 THE APPLICATION MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .
COSTS
9 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 , IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY STAFF OF THE COMMUNITIES THE INSTITUTIONS ARE TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION ;
2 . ORDERS THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
