JUDGMENT OF 7.7.1964 — CASE 87/63 GEORGES v COMMISSION

In Case 87/63

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

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts

II — Conclusions of the parties

A — The applicant claims in her application that the Court should:

alternatively,

In the further alternative,

In her statement in reply:

B — The defendant contends:

—— In its statement of defence that the Court should:

—— In its rejoinder, that tne Court should:

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

A — As to admissibility

B — On the substance of the case

1. As to the first ground of complaint: irregularity of the establishment procedure

2. As to the second ground of complaint: inaccuracy or irrelevance of the reasons

3. As to the third ground of complaint: irregularity of fhe length of notice

4. Concerning the claim for compensation

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

I — As to admissibility

II — On the substance of the case

A — Concerning the ground of complaint based upon the irregularity of the integration procedure

B — Concerning the ground of complaint based on the inaccuracy and lack of relevance of the reasons

C — Concerning the request for compensation

III — Costs

I —. Facts

II —. Conclusions of the parties

A —. The applicant claims in her application that the Court should:

B —. The defendant contends:

——. In its statement of defence that the Court should:

——. In its rejoinder, that tne Court should:

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

A —. As to admissibility

B —. On the substance of the case

1. As to the first ground of complaint: irregularity of the establishment procedure

(a). She alleges, hrst of all, that the procedure which was followed allowed neither the Establishment Board nor the applicant to verifythe accuracy of the complaints raised against her. It is equally objectionable that the assessments made of her by the establishment report (Schedule 1 to the statement of defence) should have depended upon the subjective opinion of a superior in the hierarchy and upon his personal severity. In brief the applicant alleges that the Establishment Board was not able to come to a decision with full knowledge of the case.

(b). She alleges, further, that the Establishment Board did not employ a procedure in which both sides were sufficiently heard: the file was incomplete, and the complaints ultimately regarded as decisive, and which led to results comparable to those of the most serious disciplinary measures, were not put into writing and brought to her knowledge beforehand.

(c). one alleges, iastly, that the integration procedure was not governed by general and uniform provisions in conformity with Article 110 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the EAEC, which was indispensable to ensure the right of defence and to conform to the principle of equality between servants.

2. As to the second ground of complaint: inaccuracy or irrelevance of the reasons

3. As to the third ground of complaint: irregularity of fhe length of notice

4. Concerning the claim for compensation

IV —. Procedure

I —. As to admissibility

II —. On the substance of the case

A —. Concerning the ground of complaint based upon the irregularity of the integration procedure

B —. Concerning the ground of complaint based on the inaccuracy and lack of relevance of the reasons

C —. Concerning the request for compensation

III —. Costs

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 Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Atomic Energy Community; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Articles 69, 70, 76 and 95; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Atomic Energy Community, especially Articles 34, 91, 102 and 110; THE COURT (First Chamber) hereby:

1 Dismisses Application No 87/63 as unfounded;

2 Orders each party to bear its own costs in respect of both the main application and the application for legal aid.