JUDGMENT OF 1.7.1964 — CASE 80/63 DEGREEF v COMMISSION

In Case 80/63

THE COURT (Second Chamber) composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, R. Rossi (Rapporteur) and R. Lecourt, 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

Admissibility

The substance of the case

A — The request for annulment

1. Infringement of Article 110 of the Staff Regulations

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

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

4. Infringement of Article 102 of the Staff Regulations

5. Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations in that the reasons upon which the opinion of the Establishment Board was based are not stated

6. Infringement of the principle of equality of treatment between servants

7. The inaccuracy or the incorrect evaluation of the facts upon which the Establishment Board relied

B — The claim for damages

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

A — The naming of the defendants as parties

B — The application for annulment

Admissibility

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 Article 102 of the Staff Regulations

Infringement of the last paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations

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

C — The claim for damages

Costs

I —. Facts

II —. Conclusions of the parties

1. annul the integration procedure applied to the applicant as well as the opinion of the Establishment Board notified to the applicant by a letter from Mr Van Gronsveld of 28 June 1963;

2. annul the termination of the applicant's contract of employment notified to-, him by letter of 28 June 1963;

3. declare that the Commission must arrange that the integration procedure be re-applied to the applicant after completion of the formalities laid down in the last sentence of Article 5 and in Article 110 of the Staff Regulations;

4. order the Community or alternatively the Commission to pay to the applicant by way of damages and interest thereon the sum of five million Belgian francs for material damage and five million Belgian francs for non-material damage, the applicant reserving the right to amend these figures in the course of the proceedings;

5. declare that the European Economic Community or alternatively the Commission must bear the entire costs of the proceedings (including all disbursements and fees).

1. order the defendant to produce

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

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. The applicant states in his reply that the reason for his application against the Community itself is explained by Article 91 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, which refers to disputes between one of the Communities and any person … and by the necessity to avoid any objection of inadmissibility under this head. He emphasizes that his naming of the Community as a party could be to his advantage if the Court considers that it is necessary to order production of the preparatory studies for Regulations Nos 31 and 11 of the Council.

2. The defendant in addition puts forward the following submissions:

3. The defendant in addition points out that the applicant pleads in a general way all the grounds for annulment laid down by the Treaty without stating to which particular ground for annulment the various complaints set out subsequently in the application relate.

A —. The request for annulment

1. Infringement of Article 110 of the Staff Regulations

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

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

(a). to substitute, for the complaint that it is impossible, in the absence of these documents, to check the composition of the Establishment Board or to know who were the members who took part in the inquiry and deliberations, a request for a declaration that the deliberations of the Board are null and void: it appears in fact from the said minutes that Mr van Goeler, who was not a member of the Board, took part in some of its meetings;

(b). to claim in addition

4. Infringement of Article 102 of the Staff Regulations

5. Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations in that the reasons upon which the opinion of the Establishment Board was based are not stated

6. Infringement of the principle of equality of treatment between servants

7. The inaccuracy or the incorrect evaluation of the facts upon which the Establishment Board relied

B —. The claim for damages

IV —. Procedure

A —. The naming of the defendants as parties

B —. The application for annulment

1. The applicant claims in the first instance that both the integration procedure and the opinion of the Establishment Board notified to the applicant by letter of 28 June 1963 should be annulled. The defendant maintains that this head of the conclusions is not admissible, in that it does not relate to the annulment of a measure having the nature of a decision.

2. The applicant claims that the decision to terminate his contract of employment communicated to him by letter of 28 June 1963, should be annulled. The admissibility of this claim is not challenged by the defendant and no grounds exist for the Court to raise the matter of its own motion.

1. The applicant maintains that the Establishment Board gave the appointing authority a defective opinion in that it was not drawn up in accordance with Article 102 (1), as one of its members, Mr de la Fontaine, was at that time a legal adviser and was not employed in a supervisory capacity.

2. The applicant puts forward in addition the argument that when the Establishment Board gave its disputed opinion it relied on reports and assessments which, since no uniform criteria for the preparation of reports were determined beforehand, contain subjective assessments and do not relate to facts-which can be challenged by production of evidence to the contrary.

C —. The claim for damages

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon reading 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 annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, especially Article 19; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Community, especially Articles 5, 25, 90, 91, 102 and 110; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Articles 38 and 69; THE COURT (Second Chamber) hereby:

1 annuls the decision to terminate the contract of employment of Mr R. Degreef, notified to him by letter of 28 June 1963;

2 orders the Commission of the EEC to pay Mr Degreef the arrears of his monthly salary and the accompanying allowances from the date of his dismissal, taking into account any sums he may have received from alternative employment during this period;

3 orders the Commission of the European Economic Community to pay the costs.