Judgment_paragraph 1. · 15/65

1.Infringement of an essential procedural requirement(a) whilst expressly declaring that he does not wish to raise this fact as a ground for annulment, the applicant observes that the contested decision and the letter of notification were drawn up in French, although he is a German national.The defendant replies that the applicant was considered to be satisfied with the notification procedure, as he had a thorough command of the French language.(b) secondly, the applicant maintains that under the terms of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of Officials ‘Any decision adversely affecting an official shall state the reasons on which it is based’.He maintains that the contested decision adversely affects him for the following reasons:— as regards relationships within the department, it subordinates him to the Director-General for Economy and Energy;— in addition to the duties which he previously performed it assigns to him new and wide-ranging tasks, although it attributes the same tasks to another official (Mr Cros) while discharging the latter from the duties which he previously performed:— it gives him two posts, maintaining him in post No 10 of the detailed list of posts while awarding him in addition roost No 3.It follows from this that the contested decision should have been reasoned. The applicant alleges, however, that the measure in question merely referred to an earlier decision of the High Authority of 24 September 1964. This earlier decision cannot be regarded as constituting the reasons for the decision in question. In fact, it was neither published nor brought to the attention of the officials of the High Authority nor notified to the applicant, in any event as regards those passages which could have been of interest to him.The defendant replies, first, that the contested decision does not constitute an act adversely affecting the applicant. In support of this view it sets out the arguments which it developed in support of its allegation that the application is inadmissible (See above, A, Admissibility).It adds that sufficient reasons are given for the decision in question in the ferences to the meetings of the High Authority on 24 September 1964 and 2 December 1964. It refers here to the case-law of the Court in Joined Case 35/62 and 16/63 [1963] ECR.(c) The applicant points out that the High Authority transferred him to post No 3 of the detailed list of posts, which had become vacant on the retirement of its former occupant, Mr Regul, without observing the rules of procedure laid down in Article 7 of the General Rules on Organization adopted by the High Authority on 28 April 1960. (Official Journal of 3 May 1960, p. 748).The applicant maintains that there is no doubt as to the mandatory nature of these provisions. The sixth paragraph of Article 7 expressly speaks of the ‘post to be filled’ and the second paragraph specifies that a ‘notice of internal competition’ must be circulated. The result of that internal competition may be the recruitment of an official by means of a transfer, promotion, or reintegration.The defendant replies that the provision in question lays down a procedure which need only be followed for the recruitment of Directors-General, Assistant Directors-General, Directors and Assistant Directors.The High Authority was unable to recruit an Assistant Director-General by means of the decision in question, since the Staff Regulations of Officials of the ECSC, which entered into force on 1 January 1962, abolished such posts. The decision only attributed to the applicant—who was and is an Unclassified Adviser in Grade Al—further duties within the general framework of his appointment as an official ‘engaged in top-level studies’.