Opinion of Mr Advocate-General Roemer

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

The case of Degreef against the Commission of the European Economic Community originates in the unfavourable outcome of the integration procedure under Article 102 of the Staff Regulations as regards the applicant, who since 25 September 1959 had been a messenger in the service of the Commission, and this led to his dismissal by the Director-General of Administration (notification to the applicant by letter of 28 June 1963).

His conclusions are similar to those in Case 78/63; similarly the complaints which he puts forward in this case largely correspond to those in Case 78/63.

My examination of this case can therefore be correspondingly brief. I will only give my opinion in detail on the points which distinguish the two cases.

I. This means:

II. I must now examine other arguments in the applications in greater detail, either because they were not put forward in Case 78/63 or because they disclose special factual aspects which merit attention.

1. In the first place there is the complaint that the integration procedure was carried out in an irregular manner, which in the Degreef case is likewise subdivided into several points of objection:

2. Finally in this case the complaint has also been raised that the reasons upon which the opinion of the Establishment Board are based are inadequate. It does not seem to me to be permissible to dismiss this complaint simply by referring to the Leroy judgment, although the opinion which we must consider is superficially similar to the one in Case 78/63. The applicant in fact submits that reference to the report prepared by his superiors is no substitute for a statement of the reasons upon which the opinion was based, because this report was in the final analysis favourable to the applicant, while the opinion of the Establishment Board wasunfavourable.

3. After everything which I have said so far it seems to me that I need not examine the complaint that the facts were not correctly evaluated. The applicant will be able to obtain satisfaction on this point if, after the annulment of the opinion of the Establishment Board, the integration procedure is re-applied to him. It is before this Board that questions of fact can properly be discussed, not before the Court, which at best could decide whether they have any influence on the value-judgment given by the Board, but which cannot itself undertake a complete assessment of them.

III. With regard to the claim for damages in its amended form I refer to my observations in Case 78/63.

IV. To sum up I came to the following conclusion:

1 Translated from the German.