1 THE APPLICATION IS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE FOR THE ANNULMENT OF TWO MEASURES OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , THAT IS TO SAY THE ' APPOINTMENT ' OF MR REID , ON THE ONE HAND , AS CHAIRMAN OF THE WORKING PARTY CHARGED WITH DEALING WITH QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE RE-ORGANIZATION OF THE LIBRARY OF THE DEFENDANT INSTITUTION , AND ON THE OTHER HAND , AS RE-ORGANIZER OF THAT LIBRARY .
2 THE APPLICANT FURTHER SEEKS A DECLARATION OF AN UNLAWFUL ACT ON THE PART OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENT IN NOT GIVING FAVOURABLE CONSIDERATION TO THE COMPLAINT WHICH THE APPLICANT MADE AGAINST THE ABOVEMENTIONED MEASURES UNDER ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS .
I - ADMISSIBILITY
3 THE DEFENDANT INSTITUTION CLAIMS THAT THE APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE FOR LACK OF INTEREST AND ABSENCE ANY ADVERSE EFFECT UPON HER , SINCE THE DISPUTED MEASURES CEASED TO PRODUCE THEIR EFFECTS AT A DATE PRIOR TO THAT ON WHICH THE APPLICATION WAS MADE AND FURTHERMORE AMOUNTED TO MEASURES OF INTERNAL ORGANIZATION , WHICH ARE NOT ACTIONABLE .
4 AS TO THE APPOINTMENT OF MR REID AS CHAIRMAN OF THE WORKING PARTY , THE APPLICANT DOES NOT SERIOUSLY DISPUTE THAT THIS WAS DISSOLVED ON 24 OR 29 APRIL 1975 AND ADMITS THAT MR TAYLOR , WHO AT THE TIME DIRECTED THE LIBRARY , TOLD MR REID IN THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL PERSONS , INCLUDING THE APPLICANT , THAT HE THANKED HIM FOR HIS WORK ' AND HE NEED TAKE IT NO FURTHER ' .
5 CONSEQUENTLY , ASSUMING THAT THE DISPUTED APPOINTMENT HAD ADVERSELY AFFECTED THE APPLICANT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , THAT ADVERSE EFFECT , AS WELL AS THE MEASURE WHICH CAUSED IT , HAD IN ANY CASE CEASED TO EXIST PRIOR TO 31 JULY 1975 , THE DATE WHEN THE PRESENT APPLICATION WAS MADE , SO THAT , FOR THESE REASONS ALONE THE CONCLUSIONS DIRECTED TOWARDS THE ANNULMENT OF THE SAID APPOINTMENT ARE INADMISSIBLE .
6 AS TO THE NOMINATION OF MR REID AS RE-ORGANIZER OF THE LIBRARY , IT APPEARS FROM THE FILE THAT THE PERSON CONCERNED CONTINUES AT THE PRESENT TIME TO CARRY OUT THAT DUTY .
7 HOWEVER , SINCE THAT MEASURE COMES WITHIN THE POWER OF INTERNAL ORGANIZATION OF THE DEFENDANT INSTITUTION , IT CAN BE ACTIONABLE ONLY IF , AS THE APPLICANT CLAIMS , IT ADVERSELY AFFECTED THE RIGHTS WHICH SHE HAS UNDER ARTICLES 5 AND 7 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , BY REQUIRING THE APPLICANT THENCEFORTH TO CARRY OUT DUTIES WHICH DO NOT CORRESPOND TO HER POST AND GRADE , A QUESTION WHICH ALSO BELONGS TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE .
II - ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE
8 1 . THE APPLICANT STATES THAT FOLLOWING THE APPOINTMENT OF MR REID AS RE-ORGANIZER OF THE LIBRARY , HER OWN DUTIES NO LONGER CORRESPONDED TO THOSE OF AN OFFICIAL IN GRADE A 4 , SINCE THIS DISPUTED MEASURE HAD AS CONSEQUENCE THE SUBORDINATION OF THE APPLICANT TO MR REID , WHO WAS AT THE TIME ONLY A TEMPORARY SERVANT IN GRADE A 5 , AND DEPRIVED HER OF A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF HER PREVIOUS RESPONSIBILITIES .
9 A - AS REGARDS THE ALLEGED SUBORDINATION , THE APPLICANT RELIES ON THE LETTER OF 9 OCTOBER 1974 , IN WHICH MR TAYLOR TOLD HER THAT , IF SHE KEPT HER DUTIES OF SUPERVISING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ANALYTICAL CATALOGUE , WHICH SHE ACTUALLY DID , IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR HER TO COMPLY WITH MR REID ' S INSTRUCTIONS .
10 QUESTIONED BY THE COURT ON WHETHER SHE HAD ACTUALLY HAD TO CONFORM TO THE INSTRUCTIONS OF MR REID , THE APPLICANT REPLIED , ON THE ONE HAND , THAT MR REID HAD NOT ' FORMALLY ORDERED HER TO DO ANYTHING ' AND THAT SHE COULD NOT COMPLAIN THAT HE ' HAD USED A HIERARCHICAL POWER ' OR ' HAD FORCED HER HAND ' AND , ON THE OTHER HAND THAT THERE HAD BEEN ' SUBORDINATION THROUGH AN INTERMEDIARY ' , SINCE MR TAYLOR , AND , LATER , THE NEW DIRECTOR OF THE LIBRARY REGULARLY CONFIRMED SUGGESTIONS COMING FROM MR REID , THUS TURNING THEM INTO INSTRUCTIONS ADDRESSED TO THE APPLICANT .
11 SHE ADDED THAT , IN A NOTE OF 15 DECEMBER 1975 , MR REID , ALTHOUGH ADMITTING THAT THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LIBRARY BUDGET , PUT INTO CIRCULATION A DOCUMENT CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE ' MME HEBRANT , IN CONSULTATION WITH MR REID , SHOULD PREPARE THE OVERALL BUDGET PROPOSALS BY FEBRUARY OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR ' .
12 THE FACT THAT A HIERARCHICAL SUPERIOR ADDRESSES INSTRUCTIONS TO AN OFFICIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROPOSALS COMING FROM ANOTHER OFFICIAL IN NO WAY SIGNIFIES THAT THE FIRST OFFICIAL HAS BEEN SUBORDINATED TO THE SECOND .
13 FURTHER , WHEN AN OFFICIAL IS REQUIRED TO ACT IN A PARTICULAR SPHERE , ' IN CONSULTATION ' WITH A COLLEAGUE , THIS MEANS ONLY THAT THE PERSONS CONCERNED CARRY OUT THEIR RESPECTIVE FUNCTIONS ON THE FOOTING OF EQUALITY , BUT NOT THAT THE FIRST OFFICIAL IS PLACED UNDER THE ORDERS OF THE SECOND .
14 LASTLY , THE VERY ALLEGATIONS OF THE APPLICANT AND OTHER PARTICULARS IN THE FILE SHOW THAT SHE SUCCEEDED IN PRESERVING HER DUTIES INDEPENDENTLY OF MR REID .
15 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE FACT THAT MR TAYLOR BY HIS LETTER OF 9 OCTOBER 1974 TOLD THE APPLICANT THAT SHE MIGHT POSSIBLY HAVE TO CONFORM TO THE INSTRUCTIONS OF MR REID IS IRRELEVANT .
16 B - AS REGARDS THE POINT OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE APPOINTMENT OF MR REID AS RE-ORGANIZER OF THE LIBRARY MIGHT HAVE DEPRIVED THE APPLICANT OF HER PREVIOUS DUTIES , IT IS IMPORTANT TO STATE FIRST THAT FOR A MEASURE FOR THE RE-ORGANIZATION OF DEPARTMENTS TO AFFECT ADVERSELY THE RIGHTS OF AN OFFICIAL UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS , IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT THAT IT SHOULD BRING ABOUT A CHANGE OR EVEN ANY REDUCTION IN RESPONSIBILITIES , BUT IT IS NECESSARY THAT , TAKEN TOGETHER , HIS REMAINING RESPONSIBILITIES SHOULD FALL CLEARLY SHORT OF THOSE CORRESPONDING TO HIS GRADE AND POST , TAKING ACCOUNT OF THEIR CHARACTER , THEIR IMPORTANCE AND THEIR SCOPE .
17 THE CONTRARY ARGUMENT WOULD AMOUNT FURTHER TO RESTRICTING UNDULY THE FREEDOM OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS TO ORGANIZE THEIR INTERNAL WORK IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE .
18 IT IS SUFFICIENT THEREFORE TO CONSIDER , IN THE LIGHT OF THE ANSWERS PROVIDED BY THE PARTIES TO THE QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE COURT AND OF THE DOCUMENTS PUT FORWARD IN THEIR SUPPORT , WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS ESTABLISHED THAT HER PRESENT RESPONSIBILITIES DO NOT CORRESPOND TO THOSE OF A PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATOR CLASSIFIED IN THE HIGHER GRADE IN THE CAREER BRACKET A 4/A 5 .
19 IT APPEARS FROM THE ' DEFINITION OF THE DUTIES ' OF THE LIBRARY OFFICIALS , LAID DOWN BY THE DEFENDANT INSTITUTION IN DECEMBER 1975 AND CONSTITUTING , BY ITS OFFICIAL NATURE , THE ESSENTIAL FACT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PRESENT EXAMINATION , THAT THE LIBRARY AT PRESENT CONSISTS OF TWO DIVISIONS PLACED RESPECTIVELY UNDER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT AND OF MR REID AND EACH OF WHICH INCLUDES IN ADDITION AN ADMINISTRATOR AND A PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT , COMING RESPECTIVELY WITHIN CAREER BRACKETS A 6/A 7 AND B 1 .
20 ACCORDING TO THE WORDING OF THIS DOCUMENT , THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE APPLICANT ARE LAID DOWN BY THE FOLLOWING KEY WORDS : ' SUPERVISION OF THE CENTRAL CATALOGUE ' , ' SUPERVISION OF THE CATALOGUE AND PROCESSING OF WORKS IN FRENCH AND ITALIAN ' , ' ORDERING NEW ACQUISITIONS ' , ' SUPERVISION OF THE LIBRARY BUDGET ' , ' MANAGEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS ' AND ' INFORMATION TO USERS ' .
21 THE SITUATION WHICH EMERGES FROM THAT DESCRIPTION AGREES WITH THE STATEMENT APPEARING IN THE NOTE OF 25 NOVEMBER 1974 WHICH WAS SENT BY MR TAYLOR TO THE APPLICANT AND WHICH READS INTER ALIA : ' YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE DIRECTLY TO ME FOR ONE PART OF THE LIBRARY ' S SERVICES , NAMELY THE OVERALL CONTROL OF THE ANALYTICAL CATALOGUE , AND MR REID IS EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE TO ME FOR ANOTHER PART , NAMELY . . . THIS SITUATION HAS NOT CHANGED IN ANY WAY . . . ' .
22 THE SAID DESCRIPTION EVEN DISCLOSES RESPONSIBILITIES MORE EXTENSIVE THAN THOSE , WHICH WERE ALREADY SUBSTANTIAL , MENTIONED BY THE APPLICANT IN A NOTE OF 23 MAY 1975 , ADDRESSED TO THE NEW DIRECTOR OF THE LIBRARY AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE LATTER , SUMMARIZING THE TASKS WHICH SHE UNDERTAKES IN THE LIBRARY .
23 THAT HOLDS TRUE IN ANY CASE AS REGARDS THE APPLICANT ' S POWERS IN BUDGETARY MATTERS , LAID DOWN AT A MEETING WHICH TOOK PLACE ON 14 JULY 1975 UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE SAID NEW DIRECTOR AND AT WHICH , AMONGST OTHERS , THE APPLICANT AND MR REID WERE PRESENT .
24 ACCORDING TO AN INTERNAL NOTE CONCERNING THAT MEETING PREPARED BY THE NEW DIRECTOR , IT WAS THEN DECIDED , AFTER A DISCUSSION , THAT THE APPLICANT ' FUR DAS BUDGET DER BIBLIOTHEK VERANTWORTLICH ZEICHNEN SOLL . DIES BEDEUTET : EINE PERMANENTE KONTROLLE DER KREDITE UND GEGEBENENFALLS EIN VETORECHT BEI ANSCHAFFUNGEN , DIE DIE MOGLICHKEITEN DES BUDGETS UBERSTEIGEN WURDEN ' ( ' SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LIBRARY BUDGET , WHICH MEANS PERMANENT SUPERVISION OF APPROPRIATIONS AND , WHERE NECESSARY , A RIGHT OF VETO OVER ACQUISITIONS WHICH EXCEED THE LIMIT OF THE BUDGET ' ).
25 NEXT , A SERIES OF NOTES EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND MR TAYLOR CONFIRM THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT IN RESPECT OF THE ACQUISITION OF BOOKS AND OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE LIBRARY STAFF AND SHOW THAT MR TAYLOR HAS REPEATEDLY INVITED THE APPLICANT TO MAKE KNOWN HER POINT OF VIEW ON QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE ORGANIZATION OF THE LIBRARY .
26 IT APPEARS FROM ALL THESE FACTORS , FOLLOWING THE APPOINTMENT OF MR REID AS RE-ORGANIZER OF THIS LIBRARY , THAT THERE IS NO GROUND FOR SAVING THAT THIS MEASURE LED TO REDUCING THE WORK OF THE APPLICANT TO RESPONSIBILITIES LESS THAN THOSE WHICH CORRESPOND TO THOSE OF A PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATOR CLASSIFIED IN GRADE A 4 .
27 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE APPLICANT ' S CONCLUSIONS DIRECTED TOWARDS THE ANNULMENT OF THE APPOINTMENT OF MR REID AS RE-ORGANIZER OF THE LIBRARY OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT MUST BE DISMISSED .
28 2 . ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT , THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENT WAS WRONG IN REJECTING THE COMPLAINT WHICH THE APPLICANT MADE AGAINST THE CONTESTED MEASURES .
29 HOWEVER , IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE CONCLUSIONS DIRECTED TOWARDS THE ANNULMENT OF THESE MEASURES MUST BE DISMISSED .
30 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE DISPUTED REJECTION CANNOT BE REGARDED AS ILLEGAL , SO THAT , FOR THAT REASON ALONE , THE REQUEST FOR A DECLARATION OF AN UNLAWFUL ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENT CANNOT BE UPHELD .
COSTS
31 THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN HER SUBMISSIONS .
32 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
33 NEVERTHELESS UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE INSTITUTIONS , IN APPLICATIONS BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES SHALL BE BORNE BY THEM .
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )
HERBEY HEREBY RULES :
1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED ;
2 . THE PARTIES SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
