1 BY APPLICATIONS LODGED ON 16 NOVEMBER 1970, THE APPLICANTS REQUESTED THE COURT TO DECLARE THAT THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, ACTING THROUGH THE COMMISSION, ARE UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO COMPENSATE FOR THE INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPLICANTS RESULTING FROM THE FACT THAT, IN ORDER TO MEET THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS WHICH THEY HAVE UNDERTAKEN IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THEY HAVE HAD TO TRANSFER A GREATER SUM IN BELGIAN FRANCS, THE CURRENCY IN WHICH THEIR SALARY IS EXPRESSED AND PAID, FOLLOWING THE REVALUATION OF THE DEUTSCHMARK WHICH OCCURRED IN OCTOBER 1969 . THEY REQUESTED THAT THE COMMISSION BE ACCORDINGLY ORDERED TO PAY THEM IN RESPECT OF LOSS OF INCOME, THE SUMS OF MONEY CORRESPONDING TO THE LOSS WHICH THAT REVALUATION HAD CAUSED THEM FOR THE PERIOD FROM 15 NOVEMBER 1969 TO 15 NOVEMBER 1970, ACCORDING TO A CALCULATION ANNEXED TO EACH OF THE APPLICATIONS . IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT WERNER HORN REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION BE ORDERED TO INSERT IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS A PROVISION MAKING THE EMPLOYER OF OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES GENERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR MONETARY RISKS .
2 IT IS NOT FOR THE COURT OF JUSTICE TO GIVE ORDERS TO THE COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES . THEREFORE THIS ADDITIONAL REQUEST MUST BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE .
3 IN SUPPORT OF THEIR ARGUMENT THE APPLICANTS RELY CHIEFLY ON ARTICLE 76 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS WHICH PROVIDES THAT GIFTS, LOANS OR ADVANCES MAY BE MADE TO OFFICIALS, FORMER OFFICIALS OR WHERE AN OFFICIAL HAS DIED, TO THOSE ENTITLED UNDER HIM WHO ARE IN A PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT POSITION AS A RESULT INTER ALIA OF SERIOUS OR PROTRACTED ILLNESS OR BY REASON OF FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES . THEY CLAIM THAT SINCE THE DIFFICULTIES IN THIS CASE STEM IN PARTICULAR FROM THE FAMILY OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES, THEY SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED TO CONSTITUTE A PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT POSITION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 76 .
4 ARTICLE 76 DOES NOT IMPOSE ANY SPECIFIC OBLIGATION ON THE COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES, BUT IS INTENDED TO GIVE THEM THE POWER TO COME TO THE ASSISTANCE OF OFFICIALS OR FORMER OFFICIALS WHO ARE IN DIFFICULTIES . THIS PROVISION CONSTITUTES AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT ALL OFFICIALS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME STAFF REGULATIONS AND CANNOT OBTAIN PRIVILEGES, OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH ARE LAID DOWN IN A GENERAL AND OBJECTIVE MANNER . THEREFORE, THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY MUST ASSESS THE INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE IN WHICH THERE IS A REQUEST FOR THE APPLICATION OF THIS ARTICLE BEFORE IT CAN ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT POSITION . THUS THE PROVISION PROHIBITS ITS AUTOMATIC APPLICATION AS SOON AS CERTAIN EVENTS OCCUR, SUCH AS A SERIOUS OR PROTRACTED ILLNESS .
5 ALTHOUGH THE FACTS UPON WHICH THE APPLICANTS RELY ARE CAPABLE, IN APPROPRIATE CASES, OF CREATING A PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT POSITION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 76 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, THE MERE FACT THAT THEY HAVE HAD TO MEET LARGER PAYMENTS FOLLOWING THE REVALUATION OF THE DEUTSCHMARK CANNOT BY ITSELF CONSTITUTE A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR APPLYING THAT PROVISION . ALTHOUGH THEREFORE IT FALLS TO THE OFFICIALS CONCERNED TO APPLY INDIVIDUALLY TO THE COMMISSION SO THAT THE LATTER CAN ASSESS WHETHER ARTICLE 76 SHOULD BE APPLIED IN VIEW INTER ALIA OF THE AMOUNT OF THEIR SALARY, THE FACT THAT THEY SUFFERED LOSS THROUGH THE REVALUATION OF THE DEUTSCHMARK CANNOT, HOWEVER, BE SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF TO JUSTIFY SUCH APPLICATION .
6 THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSION BASED ON THE ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THAT PROVISION MUST BE REJECTED .
7 THE APPLICANTS HAVE IN ADDITION INVOKED THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF TREATMENT BETWEEN OFFICIALS OF THE COMMUNITIES .
8 HOWEVER THE PRINCIPLE WHICH HAS BEEN INVOKED HAS BEEN EXPRESSED IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT ALL COMMUNITY OFFICIALS EMPLOYED IN THE SAME PLACE ARE PAID IN THE SAME CURRENCY AND ACCORDING TO A UNIFORM SCALE, WHATEVER THEIR NATIONALITY AND REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT THEY SPEND THEIR SALARY IN THEIR PLACE OF WORK OR ELSEWHERE . NO DOUBT, THE SALARY MAY REPRESENT A DIFFERENT PURCHASING POWER ACCORDING TO WHERE IT IS SPENT . THESE DIFFERENCES STEM FROM A LARGE NUMBER OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THESE DIFFERENT PLACES AND OF WHICH THE PAR VALUE OF THE NATIONAL CURRENCY IS ONLY ONE OF THE POSSIBLE FACTORS . THEREFORE AN AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENT ACCORDING TO THE CHANGES IN THE PAR VALUE OF THE CURRENCIES OF MEMBER STATES, SUCH AS IS ENVISAGED BY THE APPLICANTS, WOULD, AS REGARDS OTHER OFFICIALS WHO HAVE TO BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES OF OTHER FLUCTUATIONS IN PURCHASING POWER WHICH ARE LESS OBVIOUS BUT JUST AS SUBSTANTIAL, CONSTITUTE A DISCRIMINATORY ADVANTAGE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PRINCIPLE WHICH HAS BEEN INVOKED .
9 THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED .
10 THE APPLICATIONS MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
11 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS, SUBJECT TO THE RESERVATION THAT UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THOSE RULES, INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS IN APPLICATIONS BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES .
THE APPLICANTS HAVE FAILED IN THEIR SUBMISSIONS .
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATIONS;
2 . ORDERS THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
