Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mancini

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. Richard Hamill, a British national, is an official of the Commission of the European Communities in Grade A 6 and at the material time he was an inspector in the Competition Directorate. He asks the Court to order the Commission to compensate him for the material and nonmaterial damage suffered as a result of his arrest in Great Britain on 9 October 1984.

2. Let me say at once that I do not propose to dwell on the objection of inadmissibility. Far from referring to the first paragraph of Article 215 of the EEC Treaty, as is alleged by the Commission, the action was properly brought on the basis of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations of Officials; and, as the time-limits for lodging it were complied with, the application must be declared admissible.

3. In essence the Commission defends itself against those allegations by taking refuge behind the principle that it is under an obligation to cooperate with the courts and police forces of the Member States whenever the privileges and immunities of its employees are not brought into question.

4. That said, let me now turn to the applicant's first complaint. As the Court will recall, the applicant states that his arrest resulted from a scheme hatched between the Commission and the British authorities; Scotland Yard would not have been able to arrest him if the Commission had not first changed the dates of Mr Hamill's missions, and in particular the date on which he would travel to the United Kingdom and had not at the same time informed the police of the new date.

5. Let us turn now to the second complaint. Mr Hamill, as we have seen, maintains that the Commission did nothing to afford him assistance as required by Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. The fact is, however, that that provision is intended to protect the official from attack by reason of his position or duties (emphasis added); it is clear that the investigations and the applicant's arrest and detention do not satisfy that requirement. It appears, on the contrary, that the applicant became involved in the matter of the fraud as a result of imprudent or excessively casual conduct and that during his interrogation in Luton he was at the very least unforthcoming.

6. Finally, a few words on the relief sought by the applicant. Clearly, the compensation to which he is entitled must be limited to the damage which has a direct causal link with the negligence attributable to the Commission: consequently, it must be limited, in view of what I have said, solely to the damage resulting from the fact that he was unable to benefit from the guarantees of which he would have availed himself if his interrogation and arrest had taken place in the State where he resided.

7. On the basis of the foregoing considerations I propose that the Court should:

1 Translated from the Italian.