Adam Blomefield v European Commission (190/82)

V —Oral procedure

At the sitting on 7 July 1983 oral argument was presented by E. Lebrun, for the applicant, and by D.Jacob, for the Commission; they mainly confined their submissions to the three questions which had been submitted to them by the Court.(a) Counsel for the applicant argued that an official may, ex post facto, challenge the conditions of employment which he accepted at the time of recruitment, as soon as a new event occurs; such was the case when he had been unaware, at the time of recruitment, of binding provisions — in this instance the Commission's decision of 6 June 1973 — governing those conditions of employment. Revision, he claimed, may be sought retrospectively if the new event precedes, as in this case, the fixing of the conditions of employment.Counsel for the Commission recalled that the legal relationship between an official and his employer is statutory by nature, not contractual; once recruited, the official is subject to all the provisions of the Staff Regulations and the implementing decisions adopted by the institution. The consent of the official is required neither to his classification nor in respect of the other conditions of employment. The official has the possibility, under Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, of submitting a request concerning the decision on his classification and, should that request be rejected, may lodge a complaint; if he docs not obtain satisfaction he must, within three months of the rejection of his complaint, bring an action before the Court, failing which it will be debarred. It is not possible for him subsequently to submit a second request to the same effect and then a second complaint after expiry of the original period permitted for bringing legal proceedings. A decision which is identical in substance to a previous decision is purely confirmatory and cannot be the subject of litigation, even if it was given following a reexamination of the case.On this point, the applicant denied that he had made any earlier request or complaint, following recruitment, regarding his classification in step.(b) Counsel for the applicant submitted that the first paragraph of Article 5 (1) of the Commission's decision of 6 June 1973 creates an obligation on the part of the appointing authority. The second paragraph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations confers on the authority a discretionary power to grant additional seniority; however, by virtue of its decision of 6 June 1973, the Commission had itself curtailed its power in this respect and made it into a fettered discretion.Counsel for the Commission conceded that the appointing authority limited its discretionary power by adopting the decision of 6 June 1973; nevertheless, it had reserved to itself the right to determine what professional experience justified the granting of additional seniority.(c) Both parties observed that Career Bracket L/A8-L/A7 was abolished by Council Regulation No 912/78 of 2 May 1978 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials (Official Journal 1978, L 119, p.1The Advocate General delivered her opinion at the sitting on 20 October 1983.