Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2011:124
Date: 2011-07-20
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded;Staff cases - successful

Summary 1. Officials – Obligation of administration to provide assistance – Scope (Staff Regulations, Art. 24) 2. Officials – Obligation of administration to provide assistance – Implementation – Condition – Prior request by the person concerned – Exception (Staff Regulations, Art. 24) 3. Officials – Obligation of administration to provide assistance – Implementation – Condition – Prior request by the person concerned – Conditions for the admissibility thereof (Staff Regulations, Art. 24) 4. Officials – Obligation of administration to provide assistance – Scope (Staff Regulations, Art. 24, first para.) 5. Officials – Obligation of administration to provide assistance – Lawfulness of an institution’s refusal to take measures (Staff Regulations, Art. 24) 1. Since the purpose of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations is to provide officials with protection both at the present time and in the future in order to enable them to carry out their duties better in the general interest of the service, the institutions’ duty to provide assistance is not confined to staff who are currently working, but concerns all officials, including those on leave on personal grounds. (see para. 12) See: 12 June 1986, 229/84 Sommerlatte v Commission, para. 19 19 May 1999, T-34/96 and T-163/96 Connolly v Commission, para. 130 2. It is, in principle, for the official concerned to request assistance from the relevant institution unless exceptional circumstances are such as to oblige the institution to provide specific assistance not in response to a request from the official concerned but on its own initiative. (see para. 13) See: Sommerlatte v Commission, para. 20 3. An official may request assistance even if he provides no other information, but merely refers to the duty to provide assistance laid down in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, or, conversely, where the unequivocal wording of his request shows that he intended to rely on that article, even though he did not expressly refer to it. Furthermore, as the second paragraph of that article enables officials to obtain compensation for damage suffered as a result of insulting or defamatory acts perpetrated against them by reason of their position or duties, the fact that the request for assistance simply takes the form of a claim for compensation for the reimbursement of lawyers’ fees does not affect how that request must be characterised. Moreover, although an official may, as a rule, request assistance from an institution to which he belongs as soon as criminal proceedings are brought against him, since the very purpose of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations is, inter alia, to defend officials involved in legal proceedings by reason of their position or duties, the mere fact that the official concerned did not approach the institution until the end of the proceedings concerning him does not thereby prevent him from being able to request assistance. (see paras 14, 16, 17) See: 26 January 1989, 224/87 Koutchoumoff v Commission 26 October 1993, T‑59/92 Caronna v Commission, para. 65 4. By reason of the duty to provide assistance arising from the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, the administration must, when faced with an incident which is incompatible with the good order and tranquillity of the service, intervene with all the necessary vigour and respond with the rapidity and solicitude required by the circumstances of the case with a view to ascertaining the facts and, consequently, taking the appropriate action in full knowledge of the facts. However, although the duty to provide assistance referred to in the first paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations constitutes a fundamental guarantee for an official under the Staff Regulations, he must still provide prima facie evidence to show that actions by third parties, such as accusations of fraud, have been aimed at him by reason of his position and duties and are unlawful under the national legislation applicable. If those requirements were not imposed on the official, an administration would be forced to provide assistance as soon as one of its officials complained about facts allegedly linked to the performance of his duties, regardless of the nature of those facts, the seriousness of the complaint and its chances of succeeding. (see paras 23, 24) See: 5 October 1988, 180/87 Hamill v Commission; Koutchoumoff v Commission 27 June 2000, T-67/99 K v Commission, paras 34 to 42 23 November 2010, F-75/09 Wenig v Commission, para. 48 5. The lawfulness of an institution’s refusal to take measures on the basis of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations must be assessed in the light of the information available to the institution at the time when it took its decision. (see para. 25) See: Koutchoumoff v Commission