1 BY JUDGMENT OF 18 MARCH 1974, WHICH ARRIVED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 12 SEPTEMBER 1974, THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER OF THE TRIBUNALE DI VARESE APPLIED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 152 OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EAEC AND ON ITS APPLICATION TO PERSONS WHO DO NOT HAVE THE STATUS OF OFFICIALS OR SERVANTS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .
2 THESE QUESTIONS WERE RAISED IN THE CONTEXT OF DISPUTES RELATING TO THE ACCORDING OF RECOGNITION AS EURATOM OFFICIALS OR SERVANTS TO EMPLOYEES OF LOCAL MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING FIRMS WHICH HAD CONCLUDED CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES WITH THE JOINT NUCLEAR RESEARCH CENTRE ESTABLISHED AT ISPRA .
3 IT APPEARS FROM THE JUDGMENT MAKING THE REFERENCE THAT THESE WORKERS, WHO ARE THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE MAIN ACTION, HAVE PROTESTED AGAINST THE FACT THAT FOR MANY YEARS, ALTHOUGH DOING THE SAME WORK, THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE SAME TREATMENT AS STAFF DIRECTLY EMPLOYED BY THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT IN THEIR APPLICATIONS THEY HAVE CLAIMED THE STATUS OF OFFICIALS IN GRADE C3 OR GRADE C2 OR OF ESTABLISHMENT STAFF IN CLASS A GROUP 2 STEP 3 WITH RETROACTIVE EFFECT FROM THE TIME WHEN THEY STARTED WORK .
4 THE DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN ACTION HAS RAISED THE OBJECTION THAT THIS CLAIM IS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL COURT BECAUSE, IN ITS VIEW, IT IS A MATTER FOR THE COURT OF JUSTICE SINCE ENGAGEMENT AS AN OFFICIAL MUST AT ALL TIMES BE BASED ON AN INSTRUMENT OF APPOINTMENT FOR WHICH NO DECISION OF A COURT CAN BE SUBSTITUTED .
5 THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ARTICLE 152 OF THE EAEC TREATY MUST BE TAKEN AS MEANING THAT DISPUTES BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND INDIVIDUALS WHO, THOUGH NOT ITS SERVANTS, NEVERTHELESS CLAIM TO BE SO, COME WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE . 6 ARTICLE 152 PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS : '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 OR THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT '.
7 THE STAFF REGULATIONS COVER 'OFFICIALS' APPOINTED UNDER THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED FOR THEREIN .
8 THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ALSO APPLY ON THE ONE HAND TO 'TEMPORARY AND AUXILIARY STAFF' WHOSE RIGHTS, WHICH ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF OFFICIALS THEY DEFINE, AND TO 'LOCAL STAFF' ( TITLE IV OF THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ) WHOSE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ARE, UNDER ARTICLE 79 ( A ), ( B ) AND ( C ) DETERMINED 'IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT RULES AND PRACTICE IN THE PLACE WHERE THEY ARE TO PERFORM THEIR DUTIES '.
9 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE VII OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION IN ANY DISPUTE IN WHICH OFFICIALS ARE INVOLVED .
10 UNDER ARTICLES 46, 73, 83 AND 97 OF THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE VII OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY BY ANALOGY TO SERVANTS OTHER THAN LOCAL STAFF .
11 AS THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF OFFICIALS AND SERVANTS OTHER THAN LOCAL STAFF ARE DETERMINED BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS OR BY THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, DISPUTES ARISING OVER THESE CONDITIONS ARE, UNDER ARTICLE 152 OF THE EAEC TREATY, PLACED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, WHEREAS THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF LOCAL STAFF ARE LAID DOWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH NATIONAL LAW AND MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURTS .
12 IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE NATIONAL COURT HAS ALREADY EXERCISED JURISDICTION AS REGARDS THE PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION TO BE RECOGNIZED AS LOCAL STAFF, AND SUBMITS TO THE COURT ONLY A REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION IN RESPECT OF THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM TO BE GRANTED THE RIGHTS RESERVED TO OFFICIALS AND SERVANTS OTHER THAN LOCAL STAFF .
13 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS THE RIGHTS IN QUESTION ARE THOSE RECOGNIZED BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 152 OF THE EAEC TREATY MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT IT APPLIES NOT ONLY TO PERSONS WHO HAVE THE STATUS OF OFFICIALS OR OF SERVANTS OTHER THAN LOCAL STAFF BUT ALSO TO PERSONS WHO LAY CLAIM TO THIS STATUS .
14 THE QUESTION HAS ALSO BEEN ASKED WHETHER THE BASIS OF THE SERVICE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND ITS OFFICIALS OR SERVANTS MUST AT ALL TIMES AND INVARIABLY RESIDE IN AN INSTRUMENT OF APPOINTMENT OR WHETHER FOR THIS INSTRUMENT THERE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED A JUDICIAL DECISION, FINDING THAT ON THE FACTS THERE EXISTS A PARTICULAR SERVICE RELATIONSHIP .
15 IN VIEW OF THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION, THE REPLY TO THE SECOND MUST BE THAT THE BASIS OF THE SERVICE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND ITS OFFICIALS OR SERVANTS OTHER THAN LOCAL STAFF CANNOT RESIDE IN A DECISION OF A NATIONAL COURT .
16 IN VIEW OF THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION, THERE IS NO NEED TO CONSIDER THE THIRD .
17 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, WHICH HAS SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT, ARE NOT RECOVERABLE .
AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE, IN SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED, A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT, THE DECISION ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .
THE COURT
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO IT BY THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER OF THE TRIBUNALE DI VARESE BY HIS JUDGMENT OF 18 MARCH 1974 HEREBY RULES :
1 . ARTICLE 152 OF THE EAEC TREATY MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT IT APPLIES NOT ONLY TO PERSONS WHO HAVE THE STATUS OF OFFICIALS OR OF SERVANTS OTHER THAN LOCAL STAFF BUT ALSO TO PERSONS CLAIMING THAT STATUS;
2 . THE BASIS OF THE SERVICE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND OFFICIALS OR SERVANTS OTHER THAN LOCAL STAFF CANNOT RESIDE IN A DECISION OF A NATIONAL COURT .
