JUDGMENT OF 25.6.1964 — CASE 84/63 DE VOS VAN STEENWIJK v COMMISSION

In Case 84/63

THE COURT (First Chamber) composed of: A. Trabucchi, President of Chamber (Rapporteur), L. Delvaux 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

A — On admissibility

B — On the substance of the case

1. General

2. On the irregularity of the integration procedure

3. On the irregularity of the assessment made in the establishment report by the Establishment Board

(a) Infringement of the Treaty

(b) Misuse of powers

4. Damages

5. On the admissibility of the evidence tendered

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

On admissibility

On the ground of complaint based on the irregular extension of the probationary period

On the ground of complaint based on the irregularity of the integration procedure

On the submissions concerning the irregular assessment of the applicant's abilities

(a) On the infringement of the Treaty

(b) On the misuse of powers

On the claim for damages

Costs

I —. Facts

II —. Conclusions of the parties

1. the letter from the President, E. Hirsch, establishing the steering committee at Ispra and conferring on the applicant the duties of executive secretary of that body;

2. all administrative documents concerning the Nijsing and Bodnarescu incidents, referred to by the defendant in support of its argument:

3. in particular, as regards these incidents, the relevant extracts from the minutes of the deliberations which took place during the meeting of Euratom on 15 October 1963;

4. as regards the Bodnarescu incident, the letter expressly quoted in the applicant's reply to Dr Ritter of 7 September 1961;

1. that since these various incidents took place, in particular those relating to the case of the officials Nijsing and Bodnarescu, that is, since the period September-October 1961, the applicant received from Dr Ritter, his immediate superior, no real and responsible task or instructions; on the contrary he was systematically deprived of all contact with the departments;

2. that no written or oral instructions had ever been or were subsequently sent to the various departments or to senior or junior officials concerning the applicant's duties;

3. that on the contrary the heads of department with whom administrative contact was essential, in particular the heads of staff administration, stores and instruments supervision, were advised by Dr Ritter not to cooperate with the applicant;

4. that the applicant was given the duties of executive secretary of the steering committee by President Hirsch and that this committee, meeting so far as the applicant can recall, for the first time on 27 November 1961, ceased to exist after a few meetings following a decision made or initiative taken by Dr Ritter; that even before this committee was disbanded the applicant had been relieved of the task of drawing up the minutes on the pretext that his work was unsatisfactory, although at that time he had only prepared a single draft of the first minutes of the first meeting;

5. that the department or planning office, for which the applicant became responsible after the appointment of Mr Mercereau as assistant to Dr Ritter, had no powers, no real existence as a department in the service and no executive staff; that the applicant's attempts to make contact with different departments ran into the express and implied counter-instructions of Dr Ritter referred to under 2 above;

6. that the presence of the applicant in this planning office had become completely irrelevant since it had no communications with the Director, the Assistant Director or with the departments;

7. that on 8 April 1963, Mr Buurman, Assistant to the Director, Mr Funck, informed the applicant in the presence of Dr Ritter that in view of the decision refusing to integrate him and terminating his contract he was not required to resume his position at Ispra;

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

A —. On admissibility

B —. On the substance of the case

1. General

1. His letter of 7 September 1961 to Dr Ritter concerning the duties of Mr Bodnarescu. The applicant maintains that this official had succeeded in obtaining a disproportionate influence in all departments and in acquiring powers which trespassed not only on those of the applicant, but also on those of his own colleagues ;

2. His intervention in favour of Mr Nijsing, a Dutch official, which led to his remaining in the department at a time when Dr Ritter had almost decided to dismiss him.

2. On the irregularity of the integration procedure

(a). The applicant maintains that the integration procedure as applied to himself was irregular in that, instead of being based on the first probation report drawn up in February 1962, it was based on a second probation report (report on abilities) drawn up following a six months' extension of his trial period. This extension, authorized after the entry into force of the Staff Regulations, is illegal. The second probation report is also illegal in that, even under Article 34 of the Staff Regulations, it was submitted too late; it dates in fact from November 1962 although the extended probationary period came to an end on 15 May 1962.

(b). The applicant maintains that the actual integration procedure was irregular in that:

3. On the irregularity of the assessment made in the establishment report by the Establishment Board

(a). Infringement of the Treaty

1. The very general terms in which Mr Mercereau's report was expressed

2. The report made by Mr Ritter shows that, first, a set of tasks had been created, each more theoretical and illusory than the last, and, secondly, that the applicant had been given tasks, for example, concerning insurance, requiring him not to act or prepare plans, but merely to decide where the problem lay, an unnecessary task since this problem was already being dealt with by Mr Citterio; also in questions of welfare and housing the applicant had only been given minor tasks which would normally form part of the duties of servants in Grade B and even Grade C; finally, as regards the work of the applicant on the steering committee, this committee, regarded as troublesome by Mr Ritter, had only been able to meet three times. As regards the complaint made in the establishment report of his absences from work, the applicant maintains that no complaint could be made in good faith about the absences of a servant deprived of all real responsibility and condemned to waste his time in an empty office.

(b). Misuse of powers

4. Damages

5. On the admissibility of the evidence tendered

IV —. Procedure

(a). Is it true that since September-October 1961 the applicant was systematically deprived of all contacts with the departments? In particular, is it true that those heads of department with whom administrative contact was essential, notably those of staff administration and of the stores and instruments supervision department, were advised by Dr Ritter not to cooperate with the applicant? If so, were reasons given for this direction, and if so. what were they?

(b). Is it true that, following his preparation of the minutes of the first meeting of the steering committee, the applicant was relieved of this task?

(c). Is it true that the planning office, for which the applicant became responsible after the assignment of Mr Mercereau to Dr Ritter, had no powers, no existence as a department and no communication with the Director, the Assistant Director or the departments?

(a). On the infringement of the Treaty

(b). On the misuse of powers

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing 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 Atomic Energy Community; Having regard to Article 152 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials of 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 Dismisses the application as unfounded;

2 Orders each party to bear its own costs;

3 Orders the travel expenses of the witnesses to be borne by the defendant.