JUDGMENT OF 4. 7. 1963 — CASE 32/62 ALVIS v COUNCIL

In Case 32/62

THE COURT (First Chamber) composed of: L. Delvaux, President, A. Trabucchi (Rapporteur) and W. Strauß, Judges, Advocate-General: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. The reasons stated for the letter of dismissal

(a) As regards the first incident

(b) As regards the second incident

(c) As regards the third incident

2. On the damaging and prejudicial nature of the dismissal

3. The law applicable

IV — Procedure

V — Measures of inquiry

Grounds of judgment

1. On the improper and prejudicial nature of the dismissal procedure

2. On the reasons for the dismissal

Costs

I —. Facts

II —. Conclusions of the parties

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. The reasons stated for the letter of dismissal

(a). As regards the first incident

(b). As regards the second incident

(c). As regards the third incident

(d). As regards the evidence given concerning the allegations against him, the applicant disputes the validity of the inquiries made by the defendant, since they had been held without his knowledge and without his being able to defend himself. The statements collected were not taken under oath and the witnesses were questioned about incidents which are not specified in the letter of dismissal. Furthermore, the applicant states that, contrary to the view taken by the defendant, the evidence of Mr Van Audenhoven and Mr Andrien does not show that it was the applicant who was responsible for throwing three glasses. On this point the conclusions drawn by the defendant are merely unsubstantiated suppositions.

2. On the damaging and prejudicial nature of the dismissal

(a). The applicant criticizes the public and formal way in which he was notified by the defendant of the decision to dismiss him. He had been summoned, flanked by two colleagues, into the office of a superior, who formally handed him the letter of 8 August, without allowing him to give anv explanation.

(b). In response to the applicant's complaint that he had received no reply to the two letters of protest of 10 and 22 August 1962 sent by his counsel, the defendant states that it had thought that no reply was necessary, as it considered that it was acting correctly, and did not therefore intend to reverse its decision.

(c). As regards the loss suffered as a result of the dismissal, the applicant states that not only has he suffered non-material damage as a result of the prejudicial nature of the dismissal, but he has also suffered considerable material loss, principally because of his age, owing to the fact that he suddenly found himself without a job in a foreign country and will henceforward be unable to obtain any position whatever in an international organization.

3. The law applicable

IV —. Procedure

V —. Measures of inquiry

(1). Did the applicant, being in a state of intoxication on the night of 3 to 4 August 1962, throw glasses into the Rue des Quatre-Bras from the floor on which his office was situated?

(2). Prior to this incident, had the applicant reported for duty in a state of intoxication?

1. On the improper and prejudicial nature of the dismissal procedure

A —. The applicant claims that the defendant dismissed him without first giving him any opportunity of submitting his defence, by informing him of the incidents on which his dismissal was based.

B—. The applicant complains of the publicity given by the defendant to the communication of the decision of dismissal, namely in front of two responsible heads of department.

2. On the reasons for the dismissal

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the parties; Upon examining the witnesses; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community; Having regard to Article 179 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities; THE COURT (First Chamber) hereby:

I Dismisses Application 36/62 as unfounded;

2 Orders the costs incurred by the defendant to be paid by that party. The balance of the costs shall be apportioned, and shall be borne as to four-fifths by the defendant and as one-fifth by the applicant.