Mr Jean Reynier was engaged by the Commission of the European Economic Community by a letter of 18 March 1959 and commenced duties under a so-called Brussels contract on 1 April 1959, attached to the Joint Statistical Office of the European Communities. He was at the time placed in Grade A 6, Step 1. He was appointed to Grade A 5, Step 2 on 1 March 1960, and to Step 3 of the same grade on 1 April 1961. Then, with effect from 1 December 1961, he was reclassified in Grade A 4, Step 2, and appointed Head of the Associated Overseas Countries Statistics Division by a Decision of the Commission of 22 December 1961. On 21 January 1963 he was established as an official in Grade A 4, Step 2. On 2 April 1963 he wrote to the Commission through the official channels requesting, in accordance with Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, that his position within the administration be regularized by appointing him to Grade A 3 with effect from 1 Tanuarv 1962.

Mr Piero Erba was engaged by the Commission of the European Economic Community by a letter of 9 December 1959 and commenced duties under a so called Brussels contract on 1 February 1960, attached to the Joint Statistical Office of the European Communities. He was at the time placed in Grade A 5, Step 2.

A letter of 14 December 1960 informed him that the Commission had appointed him to Grade A 4, Step 1. He was made Head of Division for Banking and Financial Accounts within the department of General Statistics by a Decision of 3 May 1961 without altering his grade, and was informed of this in a letter dated 26 May 1961.

He was established as an official on 21 January 1963 in Grade A 4, Step 2. On 15 February 1963 he formally acknowledged receipt of the communication appointing him and resigned from his Brussels contract, reserving to himself, however, the benefit of all rights vested or continuing to exist after the entry into force of the new contract.

On 4 April 1963 he wrote to the Commission through the official channels requesting, in accordance with Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, that his position within the administration be regularized by appointing him to Grade A 3 with effect from 1 January 1962, and his letter was supported by a note dated 24 May 1963 from Mr R. Dumas, signed on behalf of the Director-General of the Statistical Office, drawing attention to the table of basic posts and corresponding career brackets which appears in Annex I to the Staff Regulations.

By letter of 21 May 1963 the President of the Commission informed Messrs Reynier and Erba that the Commission was as yet not in a position to give a decision on their request since the problems arising from Article 102 and the table of basic posts and corresponding career brackets have yet to be studied in full.

Messrs Reynier and Erba then commenced legal proceedings in the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Cases 79 and 82/63, lodged at the Registry on 29 July 1963.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

In their reply, the applicants supplemented their initial conclusions by further subsidiary conclusions requesting that the Court should:

The defendant contends that the Court should:

The written procedure followed the normal course. By Order of the Second Chamber of the Court of 12 March 1964 a decision as to costs in the proceedings in Cases 98 and 99/63 (main action and application for the adoption of an interim measure) between the same parties, which the applicants discontinued, was reversed, on the ground of identity of subject-matter with the present action, to the judgment in the present proceedings. The present two cases were joined on the ground of their identical subject-matter for the purposes of the oral procedure and of the judgment.

On 13 May 1964 Mr Advocate-General Roemer delivered his oral and reasoned opinion to the effect that the decisions of the Commission refusing to reclassify the applicants with effect from 1 January 1962 in Grade A 3 should be annulled, and that the Commission should be ordered to pay the costs of the present applications and of those in Cases 98 and 99/63 (main action and application for the adoption of an interim measure).

The applicants have named as defendants in their applications the European Economic Community or, alternatively, the Commission.

Article 179 of the EEC Treaty provides that: The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in any dispute between the Community and its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations of the Conditions of Employment. The phrase the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations applicable to officials and other servants necessarily implies that the appointing authority, which exercises in fact the powers of an employer with regard to officials, has the capacity to be a party to legal proceedings. In this instance the appointing authority is the Commission itself. The wording of the Regulations confirms this reasoning.

Under Title VIII, headed Appeals, Article 91 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Economic Community is a continuation of Article 90 which describes the procedure through official channels, which it is both logical and desirable to follow before proceedings are instituted before the Court. Any official may submit his case to the appointing authority of his institution by means of this procedure. Consequently the appeal to the Court provided for in Article 91 ought, in the absence of any provision to the contrary, to obey similar rules and thus be directed against that same authority.

The applicants further claim that it is necessary to compel the Community to appear because it comprises several institutions and because of the distribution of budgetary and financial powers among these institutions.

The Regulations were adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down by Article 212 of the Treaty by the authorities designated for the purpose, and the institutions are bound by their provisions; therefore the Court's interpretation of the Regulations applies equally to all the institutions of the Community.

Moreover, the force of res judicata prevents rights confirmed by a judgment of the Court from being disputed anew. Since the Community is a single entity, it is inconceivable that judgment of the Court which has the force of res judicata with regard to an institution — in this case the Commission — should not have the same force with regard to the Community as a whole.

For these reasons the applications must be regarded as being made against the Commission and there is, moreover, no reason to hold them to be inadmissible.

The applicants seek, first, the annulment of their establishment in Grade A 4.

Article 102, paragraphs 1 to 4 of which were incorporated in full in Annex X to the new Staff Regulations of officials of the ECSC, was designed to fix uniform standards not merely in relation to servants engaged under the socalled Brussels contracts but, in certain respects, also for established officials and other servants engaged under the old ECSC provisions.

One of these common standards secures for all servants of the European Communities established under this scheme recognition of the position accorded them prior to the entry into force of the Regulations (except in the particular case mentioned by the second paragraph of that Article); this will be accomplished by more or less automatically transposing the grade and step previously accorded to them, whether expressly or by implication, into the table referred to in Article 66 of the Regulations.

Before the present Regulations entered into force, servants engaged under the so-called Brussels contracts could not, in the absence of any regulations governing their position, be allocated a grade and step except by analogy with the system prevailing in the ECSC.

Consequently it is quite correct to maintain that the position of such servants is covered by the provision in Article 102 which refers to grades and steps impliedly accorded, that is to say, the grade and step accorded by implication by analogy with the ECSC rules. In fact, this provision refers only to the previous grade and step, as far as establishment of officials is concerned.

When carrying out the process of establishment of officials provided for by Article 102, the administration is not bound to take into account, in this first stage of integrating servants into the scheme set up by the Staff Regulations, any possible differences between the grade attributed by this means to each servant and the grade which properly corresponds to his duties according to Annex I to the Regulations and the definitions referred to in Article 5 (4).

The decision giving effect to the integration is therefore not to be criticized on the ground that it established the applicants in the same grade and at the same step which had been accorded to them by implication before the Regulations entered into force.

In those circumstances the applications must be dismissed in so far as they seek, on the ground above-mentioned, the annulment of the decisions giving effect to the integration.

However, any servant who, after he has been brought under the Staff Regulations, has been kept in his previous post when that post ought under the new Regulations to carry a grade higher than that accorded under the Article 102 procedure is entitled to have his position regularized in compliance with the principle of correspondence between grade and duties prescribed in Annex I.

The applicants requested, by letters dated 2 and 4 April 1963, that they be reclassified in Grade A 3 with effect from 1 January 1962.

It is not disputed in the present proceedings that the applicants exercised the duties of, and were regarded as, Heads of Division. In the new Staff Regulations of officials of the three Communities these duties correspond only to the actual career bracket for Heads of Division, which is covered exclusively by Grade A 3. Moreover the administrative units controlled by the applicants were described as Divisions by the Commission itself.

The fact that the Commission failed to draw up within a reasonable time the description of posts provided for in Article 5 of the Regulations is not an obstacle to placing the applicants in Grade A 3. In fact, Annex I, where the Council laid down guidelines for the drawing up of this description, provided from the very date on which the Regulations entered into force that Heads of Division should be classified in Grade A 3.

Consequently, the Regulations under which the applicants have been integrated confer on them the right to be classified in Grade A 3 in accordance with their posts, as from the date of entry into force of the Regulations.

While the applicants' principal conclusions are well-founded, their request for damages is not.

The applications should be referred back to the Commission for the purpose of giving effect to this judgment.

The defendant has been unsuccessful in its principal submissions, and should therefore be ordered to bear the costs of these applications by virtue of Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The Court has been asked to give a decision as to costs in Cases 98 and 99/63, and in the interlocutory proceedings for the adoption of an interim measure in those cases between the same parties, by Orders of the Second Chamber of 12 March 1964. Jean Reynier and Piero Erba discontinued their applications in those cases. The discontinuance was justified by the conduct of the defendant which stated at the hearing on 11 November 1963, in which the parties to the application for the suspension of certain measures were heard, that it would reclassify the applicants with effect from 1 January 1962 in Grade A 3 if they were successful in their applications 79 and 82/63. Had this declaration been made earlier it would have made the proceedings in Cases 98 and 99/63 unnecessary. The costs in Cases 98/63 and 99/63, and Cases 98/63 R and 99/63 R, must accordingly be borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 69 (4) of the Rules of Procedure.