C-180/87

Mr President, called at the prison where he was being Members of the Court, detained in order to collect the documents relating to his mission. On that occasion he met Mr Hamill. The latter requested the official to find him a solicitor, saying that 1. Richard Hamill, a British national, is an the police had until then refused him any official of the Commission of the European sort of legal assistance. The official took no Communities in Grade A 6 and at the steps to comply with that request and Mr material time he was an inspector in the Hamill was assigned a solicitor only on the Competition Directorate. He asks the Court following day — 12 October — when he to order the Commission to compensate him was formally charged with conspiracy to for the material and non-material damage steal and conspiracy to use a false suffered as a result of his arrest in Great instrument. After a court appearance on 13 Britain on 9 October 1984. October he was released from custody on 23 October but his passport was retained. On 22 March 1985 his passport was returned to him upon payment of a security. In the course of an investigation into an international fraud involving the circulation of forged cheques the police in London, suspecting that the applicant was directly involved in the crime, telephoned the In the mean time (on 24 October 1984) the Commission's Security Office on 20 Commission had suspended the applicant September 1984 in order to obtain infor­ but he continued to be entitled to his salary. mation concerning the applicant. Eleven On 3 April 1986 his suspension was days later the Security Office in the terminated after he was acquitted of both Berlaymont building replied informing the charges at the Old Bailey, London, by police of Mr Hamill's status and his address verdict delivered on 14 February. in Brussels, and giving details concerning his motor car, the periods of holiday he had applied for, the periods to which he was still entitled and his movements during the time in which the criminal acts took place. On 9 October an employee of the Security Office On 3 June 1986 Mr Hamill submitted a informed Scotland Yard that Mr Hamill request for compensation under Article would that morning be flying from Brussels 90 (1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials. in order to carry out a mission at various As he received no reply to that request, on steel undertakings in the United Kingdom. 11 November 1986 he lodged a complaint which was rejected by the Commission by decision of 15 June 1987. However, Mr Hamill had already lodged this application Mr Hamill arrived at Luton airport on time, (on 10 June 1987) claiming that the Court was questioned and then arrested. On the should order the Commission to pay him following day an official of the Commission BFR 5 million together with interest from

In support of the first complaint Mr Hamill 3. In essence the Commission defends itself states that the Commission's Security Office against those allegations by taking refuge did not limit the details given to the London behind the principle that it is under an obli­ police to certain personal information. They gation to cooperate with the courts and deliberately brought forward the date of his police forces of the Member States mission, which was originally due to take whenever the privileges and immunities of place at the end of October, for the sole its employees are not brought into question. purpose of delivering him into the hands of Scotland Yard, thereby sparing the police What view should be taken of the argument the judicial problems and the lengthy time which I have so summarized? In my opinion involved in questioning him in the place it must be both qualified and corrected. where he resided and in arresting him. In Articles 18 and 19 of the Protocol of 8 April other words, without the plot hatched by 1965 provide that the privileges and the Commission, Mr Hamill would not have immunities enjoyed by Community officials been taken into custody at Luton and would are accorded to them solely in the interests not have been detained unjustly; in order of the Communities; consequently, those for him to have been at their disposal the special benefits cannot be invoked in cases British authorities would have had to have where those interests are not jeopardized sent letters rogatory to the Belgian auth­ and where the fundamental rights of the orities and to have applied for his individual do not appear to be prejudiced extradition, that is to say would have had to (for similar statements relating to interna-

tional officials in general see Plantey: The would travel to the United Kingdom and international civil service, New York, 1984, had not at the same time informed the pp. 105, 371 et seq.; Duffar: Contributions à police of the new date. l'étude des privilèges et immunités des organi- sations internationales, Paris, 1982, p. 71 et The facts as set out by the parties do not seq.). appear to support such a reconstruction of

October 1984. That is to say that there is no undertaking investigations involving one doubt that on the morning of 9 October a of its employees suspected of having zealous Commission official informed the committed a criminal offence. Such an obli British police of the time of Mr Hamill's gation is generally recognized with regard arrival and other details of his mission. to the judicial authorities of the State but does not seem to be accepted in relation to the police. It is, however, true that there is In examining the case it is therefore no rule which forbids the necessary necessary to concentrate on that communi assistance being given to the latter. cation. Is it possible to consider that the Commission was entitled to make that communication by virtue of its general obli gation to cooperate with the police of a If the foregoing observations are correct, it Member State? I do not think so.

4. That said, let me now turn to the the police in a position to question and applicant's first complaint. As the Court will arrest him. recall, the applicant states that his arrest resulted from a scheme hatched between the Commission and the British authorities; By acting in that manner the Commission Scotland Yard would not have been able to (a) has created a direct causal link between arrest him if the Commission had not first its own conduct and the subsequent events changed the dates of Mr Hamill's missions, which caused the applicant damage, and and in particular the date on which he (b) has deprived the applicant of the guar-

In short, the telephone call of 9 October went far beyond the bounds of the 6. Finally, a few words on the relief sought Commission's duty and, even if it was not by the applicant. Clearly, the compensation part of a plot, enabled the British authorities to which he is entitled must be limited to to circumvent specific rules laying down the damage which has a direct causal link guarantees for the official. It is, therefore, with the negligence attributable to the proper to conclude that its conduct Commission: consequently, it must be amounted to serious negligence and, limited, in view of what I have said, solely without doubt, gave rise to liability on the to the damage resulting from the fact that part of the institution. he was unable to benefit from the guar­ antees of which he would have availed himself if his interrogation and arrest had taken place in the State where he resided.

5. Let us turn now to the second complaint. Mr Hamill, as we have seen, maintains that the Commission did nothing to afford him On the basis of various precedents (see, in assistance as required by Article 24 of the particular, the Court's judgments of 15 Staff Regulations. The fact is, however, that December 1982 in Case 158/79 Roumengous that provision is intended to protect the v Council [1982] ECR 4379, and of 7 official from attack 'by reason of his position November 1985 in Case 145/83 Adams v or duties' (emphasis added); it is clear that Commission [1985] ECR 3539) I consider it the investigations and the applicant's arrest appropriate that the parties should agree the and detention do not satisfy that amount of damages.