Mirossevich v ECSC High Authority: ECJ 12 Dec 1956

ECJ 1. The jurisdiction of the court derives from article 42 of the treaty in conjunction with the arbitration clause in the contract of employment and the provisions of the relevant staff regulations.
2. Since there is no provision for time-limits either in respect of applications through official channels or of applications to the court, a time-limit similar to that in article 33 of the treaty and in article 39 of the statute of the court of justice cannot be applied by analogy having regard to the provisions contained in the aforementioned articles.
3. It is for the administrative authority to evaluate in its discretion the capacity of candidates to carry out given duties and for the court where appropriate to review the ways and means which may have led to this evaluation. An unfavourable assessment of the capacity of a candidate to be employed as a translator cannot reasonably be made as a result of a single translation.
4. Where there is a strong presumption in support of an argument it is for the other party to rebut it.
5. Uncertainty with regard to the outcome which a probationary period would have had if it had duly taken place rules out certain damage. Non-material damage by reason of the improper nature of the decision to refuse a definitive appointment may be compensated by successive offers of a new post involving possibilities of promotion.


C-10/55, [1956] EUECJ C-10/55




Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131556