1.An action, even if formally directed against the decision rejecting an official' s complaint, has the effect of bringing before the Court the act adversely affecting the official against which the complaint was submitted ( consistent case-law, see the judgment of 17 January 1989 in Case 293/87 Vainker v Parliament (( 1989 )) ECR 23 ).
2.In the context of judicial review based on Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, the Court has no jurisdiction to issue orders to the administration so that an application seeking such an order must be declared inadmissible . Obligations may be imposed on the administration only as a result of the annulment of one of its acts in accordance with Article 176 of the Treaty ( consistent case-law, see the judgments of 26 January 1989 in Case 224/87 Koutchoumoff v Commission (( 1989 )) ECR 99 and of 27 April 1989 in Case 192/88 Turner v Commission (( 1989 )) ECR 1017 ).
3.The appointing authority may not, by means of an internal directive or other similar procedure, derogate from the mandatory provisions of the Staff Regulations ( see the judgment of 10 December 1987 in Joined Cases 181 to 184/86 Del Plato and Others v Commission (( 1987 )) ECR 4991 ) or create in favour of officials rights which might lead to their being classified in a manner contrary to the Staff Regulations .
4.Article 29(1)(a ) of the Staff Regulations, which requires the appointing authority to consider first, before filling a vacant post, whether the post can be filled by promotion or transfer within the institution, does not confer a right to automatic promotion on officials who meet the conditions for promotion .
5.Article 38 of the Staff Regulations does not guarantee that, when an official seconded in the interests of the service is reinstated in the post formerly he occupied, he will maintain the grade and remuneration he enjoyed in the post to which he was seconded .
In Joined Cases C-41/88 and C-178/88
Mathilde Becker, an official of the European Parliament, residing at 7 Van-der-Heyder-strasse, Pruem zur Lay, Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Victor Biel and Aloyse May, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,
applicant in Case C-41/88,
and
Josyane Starquit, an official of the European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Alex Schmitt, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 avenue Guillaume,
applicant in Case C-178/88,
v
European Parliament, represented by F . Pasetti Bombardella, Jurisconsult, M . Peter, Head of Division in the Legal Department, acting as Agent, and D . Petersheim, a member of the Parliament' s Legal Department, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of the European Parliament, Kirchberg,
defendant,
APPLICATION for the annulment of the decisions of the European Parliament of 12 November 1987 and 30 March 1988, concerning the reconstruction of the applicants' careers following their reinstatement,
THE COURT ( Second Chamber )
composed of : O . Due, President, F . A . Schockweiler, President of the Chamber, and G . F . Mancini, Judge,
( the grounds of the judgment are not reproduced )
hereby :
( 1 ) Dismisses the applications;
( 2 ) Orders the parties to bear their own costs .
