Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. These proceedings arise from a quarrel which took place at work between Mr Katsoufros, an official, who is a lawyerlinguist in the Translation Directorate at the Court of Justice, and Mr Constantinou, a former official of the Court, who at the time was working as a freelance reviser in that directorate. In the light of that incident, the applicant submitted a request under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, informed the administration that he had been physically assaulted and consequently asked, in connection with the duty of assistance referred to in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, for appropriate — that is to say disciplinary — measures to be taken against the assailant.

Admissibility

2. To begin with, the Court of Justice contends that the application is inadmissible since the applicant has no legal interest in bringing proceedings. On the one hand, the failure to adopt disciplinary measures does not adversely affect any situation in respect of which he is entitled to legal protection; on the other, he has already obtained satisfaction from the administration to a sufficient extent after being assured, following the incident in question, that in future his translations would no longer be revised by Mr Constantinou.

3. Having said that, and turning to the circumstances of this case, my findings are as follows.

Substance

4. In support of his application for annulment, the applicant relies on three submissions.

5. In this case, in contrast to the view taken in other proceedings, the administration has carried out a prompt inquiry into the incident in question, asking the parties to give their versions of what happened and soliciting statements from two eyewitnesses. No other evidence appears to have been neglected in order to ascertain the facts, with the result that, in my view, there are no flaws in the preliminary investigation.

6.(B). The applicant further submits that the reasons stated in the contested decision are inadequate.

7.(C). Finally, the applicant challenges the view that a former official, even one working on a freelance basis, cannot be subjected to disciplinary measures.

Costs

8. The Court of Justice takes the view that, as the action is vexatious, the applicant should be ordered to bear the whole of the costs.

9. I therefore suggest that the Court:

1 Original language. Italian.

2 See, for instance, the judgment of 7 December 1976 of the Italian Council of State (Fourth Chamber) in Case 1221, in Consiglio di Stato 1976, I, 1343

3 See, most recently, the judgment of 26 January 1989 in Case 224/87 Koutchoumoff [1989] ECR 99, paragraph 14 of the decision.

4 Ibid., paragraph 15 of the decision.

5 See, in particular, the judgment of 14 june 1979 in Case 18/78 Mrs V. v Commission [1979] ECR 2099.