C-15/68

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (FIRST CHAMBER) 25 FEBRUARY 19691

Raymond Elz v Commission of the European Communities

Case 15/68

Summary

Officials of the EEC — Personal file — Communication to person concerned — Procedure provided for in the third paragraph of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations of Officials — Purpose restricted to proof of communication

If it is established that the documents graph of Article 26 of the Staff in the personal file of an official have Regulations of Officials in the EEC have been communicated to him, it is un­ been complied with, as its only purpose necessary to consider whether the pro­ is to prove beyond doubt the communica­ cedure provided for in the third para­ tion required by the preceding paragraph.

Application at the present stage of the proceedings relating to the admis­ sibility of the application for the annulment and rectification of the periodic report of 15 January 1968 concerning the applicant,

1 — Language of the Case: French.

JUDGMENT OF 25. 2.. 1969 — CASE 15/68

THE COURT (First Chamber)

composed of: J. Mertens de Wilmars, President, A. M. Donner (Rapporteur) and R. Monaco, Judges,

Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte

in accordance with the provisions of the — dismiss the application by declaring second paragraph of Article 43 of the it to be inadmissible by way of a Staff Regulations of Officials, for its preliminary ruling under Article 91 rectification, lodged a complaint through of the Rules of Procedure; official channels with the President of — order the applicant to pay the costs. the Commission of the European Com­ The applicant contends in his observa­ munities on 27 March 1968 pursuant tions on the objection of inadmissibility to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations. that the Court should: On 25 July 1968 the applicant lodged in the first place at the Court Registry the present appeal — reserve its decision on the objection against the periodic report of 15 January of inadmissibility raised by the Com­ 1968 and the implied rejection of his mission for the final judgment; request of 27 March 1968. — declare this objection to be unfound­ In its statement of defence of 14 October ed and therefore dismiss it; 1968 the defendant raised an objection — in addition uphold the applicant' s­ of inadmissibility by submitting that it conclusions which are set forth in had withdrawn the report of 15 January full in his originating application; 1968 and had asked for Article 91 of further the Rules of Procedure to be applied; — confirm to the applicant that the the applicant submitted his observations periodic report of 15 January has on this objection on 27 November been withdrawn from his personal 1968. file;

ELZ v COMMISSION

The applicant did not therefore submit these claims within the period prescribed III — Submissions and argu by Article 91 of the Staff Regulations. ments of the parties In his observations on the objection of inadmissibility the applicant submits In its statement of defence of 14 October that it should be rejected, since the 1968 the defendant submits that the report of 22 May 1968 does not exist application is inadmissible because it in law because of the failure to comply has no purpose and the applicant has with Article 26 of the Staff Regulations no legal interest requiring protection. which provides that 'the communication As a result of the applicant's complaint of any document to an official shall be of 27 March 1968 his immediate evidenced by his signing it or, failing that, superiors modified their findings and shall be effected by registered letter'. drew up a new periodic report dated 22 The report of 22 May 1968 was not May 1968 which, with regard to the signed by the applicant and was not points criticized by the applicant, differs served upon him by registered letter. substantially from the previous report.

The applicant 1968, the applicant attended this meet submits further in another part of his ing, took note of the new report and argument that he was never informed of repeated his refusal to accept it, which the decision that the report of 15 was confirmed in a note by Mr de January had been withdrawn. For this Groote of the same date. reason he was unable to lodge an As the periodic report of 22 May 1968 application, if it had been necessary to and the note of 31 May 1968 had been do so, for the annulment of the report put on the applicant's personal file, the of 22 May. defendant concludes that the report of The applicant asked the Court in the 15 January 1968 was withdrawn from alternative to confirm that the report of the file and replaced by the report of 15 January has been withdrawn from his

JUDGMENT OF 25. 2. 1969 — CASE 15/68

detail in the application do not therefore IV — Procedure amount to a new submission. In the further alternative and to the The oral submissions of the parties were extent to which the Court upholds the heard during the hearing of 14 January defendant's alternative submission the 1969.

applicant asks the Court to apply The Advocate-General dehvered his Article 42(2) of the Rules of Pro­ opinion on the admissibility of the cedure. application on 29 January 1969.

Grounds of judgment

1-3 The application is directed against the periodic report of 15 January 1968. The defendant has raised an objection of inadmissibility by submitting that this report had been withdrawn and replaced on 22 May 1968 by an amended report and that therefore the application lodged on 25 July 1968 from the very beginning had no purpose.

4-7 The applicant replies that the documents in question cannot be used or cited against him, because Article 26 of the Staff Regulations provides that the institutions cannot use or cite against an official any documents in his per­ sonal file which have not been communicated to him. On this point he refers to the third paragraph of the said article which provides that the communica­ tion of any document to an official shall be evidenced by his signing it, or failing that, shall be effected by registered letter. In his view it follows from the defendant's own statements that the provisions of this latter paragraph have not been complied with in this case and the objection of inadmissibility must therefore be dismissed as unfounded.

15-16 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs. However, in accordance with Article 70 of the said Rules, in applications brought by servants of the Communities, institutions shall bear their own 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 Coal and Steel Community; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Com­ munities, especially Article 26; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the Euro­ pean Communities;

THE COURT (First Chamber)

hereby:

I. Dismisses Application 15/68 as inadmissible;