JUDGMENT OF 1. 3. 1962 — CASE 25/60 DE BRUYN v PARLIAMENT

In Case 25/60

THE COURT (First Chamber) composed of: O. Riese (President of Chamber), L. Delvaux and R. Rossi (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate-General: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Conclusions of the parties

II — Summary of the facts

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. On admissibility

2. On the substance of the case

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

On the admissibility of the application

On the substance of the case

Irregularity of the decision of dismissal

Payment of the installation allowance

Payment of compensation for dismissal

Costs

I —. Conclusions of the parties

1. The sum of 60000 FB by way of non-material damages;

2. A sum in lieu of notice equal to three months' salary;

3. The installation allowance calculated according to the rules in force;

II —. Summary of the facts

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. On admissibility

2. On the substance of the case

(a). is not reasoned;

(b). gives a manifestly inadequate period of notice;

(c). was taken on the basis of an arbitrary and unsubstantiated assessment of her probationary period.

(a). On the first claim, the applicant reminds the Court that the contested decision merely gave notice of the Administration's intention to terminate the contract of employment, without giving any reason, and that following the Court's previous judgment in Joined Cases 43, 45 and 48/59, this in itself is capable of evidencing the irregularity of the decision.

(b). As to the second claim, the applicant points out that the Treaty makes no provision for contracts of indefinite duration, such as the contract in dispute, for servants recruited before the adoption of the Staff Regulations and that consequently, general principles of law derived from the national laws which reflect them are to be applied. She states that, since the period of notice is intended to enable the dismissed servant to find fresh employment suited to his aptitudes and more or less equivalent to the employment which has been terminated, it follows that a period of notice of three months would appear reasonable and that, consequently, the European Parliamentary Assembly should be ordered to pay the applicant compensation equivalent to three months' salary in lieu of notice.

(c). Finally, as to the third claim, the applicant draws attention to the fact that the disputed decision to dismiss her is unjustified in view of her probation report, which, as appears from the departmental memoranda of 29 June and 3 July 1959, the competent authorities considered to be satisfactory. She also asserts that in this case she had met, within the proper time, the three conditions required for payment of the installation allowance, namely:

IV —. Procedure

1. The European Parliamentary Assembly is an institution common to the three European Communities and as such is subject to the simultaneous application of the three Treaties.

2. The applicant claims that the Court should both annul the decision of dismissal and order the Assembly to pay to the applicant:

1. The defendant maintains that the decision of dismissal was taken at the end of the applicant's probationary period. Consequently, the first question is whether the disputed contract required the said probationary period to be served.

2. The applicant maintains that the decision of dismissal contains no reasons and that, taking into account the departmental memoranda bearing on her probation, issued by the responsible authorities of the Assembly, this decision appears unjustified; according to the applicant, such a circumstance constitutes a breach of contract by the defendant rendering it liable.

(a). a favourable probation report;

(b). a favourable medical examination; and

(c). proof of installation.

On those grounds. Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community; Having regard to Articles 179, 212, 215, first paragraph, and 246 (3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and Articles 152, 186, 188, first paragraph, and 214 (3) of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities; THE COURT (First Chamber) hereby:

1 Rules that the present application for compensation is admissible;

2 Orders the European Parliamentary Assembly to pay to Mrs Leda De Bruyn the sum of 40000 Belgian francs;

3 Orders the European Parliamentary Assembly to pay to Mrs Leda De Bruyn the prescribed amount of the installation allowance;

4 Orders the European Parliamentary Assembly to pay the costs.