P.524
MR EMMANUEL STIPPERGER HAS MADE AN APPLICATION ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AGAINST THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, CONCERNING A DECISION OF 12 OCTOBER 1964 OF THE PRESIDENT OF THAT INSTITUTION CLASSIFYING HIM IN GRADE L/A 5, NOT OF CAREER BRACKET L/A 5-L/A 4, BUT OF CAREER BRACKET L/A 6-L/A 5, AND AN IMPLIED DECISION OF REFUSAL ARISING FROM A FAILURE TO REPLY TO AN APPEAL THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS MADE BY THE SAID APPLICANT ON 10 JULY 1964 ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
P.525
HE ASKS THE COURT TO RECOGNIZE, WITH ALL THE NECESSARY CONSEQUENCES, HIS RIGHT TO BE CLASSIFIED IN CAREER BRACKET L/A 5-L/A 4 OF THE TABLE OF DEFINITIONS OF DUTIES, AS AN EXPERT TRANSLATOR GIVEN PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT TRANSLATIONS . IN HIS REPLY HE HAS FURTHERMORE REQUESTED AN ORDER FOR THE REMOVAL OF THREE DOCUMENTS FROM HIS PERSONAL FILE .
THE REQUEST CONCERNING THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE APPLICANT
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPEAL IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF ANY DISPUTE .
THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THE RIGHT TO BE CLASSIFIED IN CAREER BRACKET L/A 5-L/A 4 OF THE TABLE OF DEFINITIONS OF DUTIES IN THE LANGUAGE SERVICE AND ASSERTS THAT THE WORK GIVEN TO HIM COMES WITHIN THE DUTIES CORRESPONDING TO THAT CAREER BRACKET .
THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS OPPOSED TO THIS CLASSIFICATION BECAUSE CAREER BRACKET L/A 5-L/A 4 IS THAT OF REVISER, A DUTY WHICH IS NOT CARRIED OUT BY THE APPLICANT .
IT FOLLOWS FROM THE ' DEFINITION OF DUTIES AND POWERS ATTACHING TO THE BASIC POSTS PROVIDED FOR IN ANNEX I OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ', THAT, UNDER THE HEADING ' POSTS IN THE LANGUAGE SERVICE ', CAREER BRACKET L/A 5-L/A 4 COVERS THE BASIC POST DESCRIBED AS THAT OF ' REVISER ' CORRESPONDING TO THE DUTIES DESCRIBED AS : ' EXPERT TRANSLATOR, REVISER ABLE TO TRANSLATE PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT TEXTS '.
THE WORDING IN QUESTION DOES NOT ALONE MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER CAREER BRACKET L/A 5-L/A 4 IS OPEN ONLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE THE QUALITIES BOTH OF AN EXPERT TRANSLATOR AND OF A REVISER OR IS MEANT TO DEVOTE THE SIMPLE ALTERNATIVE BETWEEN THE TWO DUTIES OF EXPERT TRANSLATOR OR REVISER . IN LAYING DOWN THE NECESSITY FOR THE PERSON CONCERNED TO POSSESS CAPABILITIES SUFFICIENT FOR HIM TO BE GIVEN PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT TRANSLATIONS, THE PROVISION IN QUESTION APPEARS TO HAVE MADE THIS A PRE-REQUISITE FOR BOTH EXPERT TRANSLATORS AND REVISERS IN THE DISPUTED CAREER BRACKET . HOWEVER THE AMBIGUITY OF THE COMMA SEPARATING THE TWO NAMES AND THE SIGNIFICANT ABSENCE OF THE WORD ' AND ' WHICH THE AUTHOR OF THE ANNEX COULD HAVE INSERTED BETWEEN THEM, CONSTITUTE NO REASON FOR FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THE GENERAL SENSE OF THE WHOLE OF THE TABLE, WHICH DISTINGUISHES THE BASIC POST OF REVISER ( L/A 5-L/A 4 ) FROM THAT OF TRANSLATOR AND INTERPRETER ( L/A 6-L/A 5 ). THE BASIC POST OF REVISER ITSELF CORRESPONDS TO THREE CATEGORIES OF DUTIES TO WHICH THE CONCEPT OF ' REVISER ' IS CENTRAL, ONE CONCERNING THE ' REVISER OF TRANSLATIONS ' ( CALLED ' REVISER ') THE NEXT THE DISPUTED DUTY CALLED ' REVISER - TRANSLATOR ', AND THE LAST FINALLY CONCERNING THE PRINCIPAL INTERPRETER WITH QUALIFICATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY ' SIMILAR TO THOSE OF A REVISER - TRANSLATOR '.
THUS IN SPITE OF THE EQUIVOCAL NATURE OF THE DISPUTED DEFINITION THERE APPEARS TO FOLLOW FROM THE TABLE AS A WHOLE A PLAN FOR RESERVING CAREER BRACKET L/A 5-L/A 4 TO OFFICIALS OR SERVANTS CARRYING OUT THE DUTIES OF REVISER, THAT IS TO SAY, WHOSE ACTIVITY IS AT LEAST IN PART CONCERNED WITH TRANSLATIONS ALREADY CARRIED OUT .
IT HAS NOT BEEN SERIOUSLY CLAIMED BY THE APPLICANT THAT HE CARRIED OUT SUCH DUTIES . HIS STATEMENT THAT HE REVISED HIS OWN TRANSLATIONS IS NOT SUFFICIENT, BY REASON OF THE MERE FACT THAT THESE WERE SOMETIMES NOT REVISED BY ANYBODY, TO CAUSE HIM TO BE REGARDED AS A REVISER .
NO MATTER HOW SPECIALIZED THE APPLICANT'S ABILITIES MAY BE, AND HIS VALUE AND ABILITIES ARE IN NO WAY DISPUTED, IT IS OF NO INTEREST IN THE PRESENT CASE TO INQUIRE WHETHER HE CAN BE GIVEN PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT TRANSLATIONS AND THUS BE REGARDED AS AN ' EXPERT TRANSLATOR ' SINCE HE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE THE DUTIES OF A REVISER .
THE APPLICATION IS THUS UNFOUNDED .
THE REQUEST CONCERNING THE DISPUTED DOCUMENTS APPEARING IN THE APPLICANT'S PERSONAL FILE
THE APPLICANT HAS ASKED THE COURT TO ORDER THAT THE DOCUMENTS NUMBERED 110, 115 AND 116 SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM HIS PERSONAL FILE . THE CONCLUSIONS ON THIS POINT WERE INCLUDED ONLY IN THE REPLY BECAUSE OF THE NEW FACT, WHICH APPEARED DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS AND CONSISTS OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE SAID DOCUMENTS . THE DEFENDANT HAS EXPRESSED IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ITS INTENTION TO REMOVE THESE DOCUMENTS . A FORMAL NOTE WILL BE MADE OF THIS .
UNDER ARTICLE 69(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . HOWEVER UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE ADMINISTRATION SHALL BEAR ITS OWN COSTS . IT IS PROPER TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT WAS MISLED AND WAS INDUCED TO MAKE HIS APPLICATION BY REASON OF THE AMBIGUOUS DRAFTING OF THE DEFINITION OF DUTIES WHICH HE BELIEVED TO BE APPLICABLE TO HIS CASE . IT APPEARS EQUITABLE TO APPLY TO HIM THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 69(3 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND TO MAKE THE HIGH AUTHORITY PAY THE APPLICANT'S COSTS .
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES APPLICATION NO 49/64 AS UNFOUNDED;
2 . TAKES NOTE THAT THE DEFENDANT IS TO REMOVE FROM THE APPLICANT'S PERSONAL FILE DOCUMENTS NUMBERED 110, 115 AND 116 WHICH HAVE APPEARED THEREIN;
3 . ORDERS THE DEFENDANT TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS .
