JUDGMENT OF 1.7.1964 — CASE 26/63 PISTOJ v COMMISSION

In Case 26/63

THE COURT (Second Chamber) composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, R. Rossi and R. Lecourt (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate-General: K. Roemer 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

General

A — Grounds of complaint concerning the annulment of the integration procedure followed in respect of the applicant

B — Grounds of complaint concerning the application for compensation

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

A — The naming of the defendants as parties

B — Application for annulment

Admissibility

As to the substance of the case

Infringement of Article 110 of the Staff Regulations

Infringement of the last sentence of Article 5 of the Staff Regulations

Infringement of the rights of the defence and the general principles of law

Animosity of an immediate superior

Infringement of Article 102 of the Staff Regulations

Infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations

Incorrect finding or incorrect assessment of the facts

Presence of Vice-President Caron during the integration procedure

Insufficient time for acceptance of a lower position

C— Application for damages

Costs

I —. Facts

II —. Conclusions of the parties

1. Declare null and void the integration procedure followed in respect of the applicant, as well as the opinion of the Establishment Board of 19 July 1962, notified to the applicant by letter from Mr Smulders of 14 March 1963:

2. Declare null and void the decision to terminate the applicant's contract, notified by letter from Mr Smulders of 6 May 1963;

3. Declare that the Commission is obliged to submit the applicant once more to the integration procedure, after having carried out the formalities laid down in the last sentence of Article 5 and in Article 110 of the Staff Regulations;

4. Declare that consequent upon annulment the applicant should be regarded as being still in the service of the Commission, in accordance with the detailed rules of the transitional scheme to which he had been subject until now;

5. Alternatively:

6. Declare that the European Economic Community or, alternatively, the Commission shall bear the entire costs of the proceedings;

7. Take note that the applicant:

1. Order the production by the opposing party of:

2. Order Mr Smulders, Director-General of Administration, to be heard on the integration procedure in general;

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

A —. Grounds of complaint concerning the annulment of the integration procedure followed in respect of the applicant

B —. Grounds of complaint concerning the application for compensation

IV —. Procedure

A —. The naming of the defendants as parties

B —. Application for annulment

C—. Application for damages

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 Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, especially Articles 173 and 179; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Economic Community, especially Articles 5, 25, 102 and 110; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Articles 69 and 70; THE COURT (Second Chamber) hereby:

1 Dismisses application 78/63;

2 Orders the parties to bear their own costs.