Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2008:397
Date: 2008-09-24
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions
Concepts: Damage for which compensation is payable;Admissibility and examination of applications, forms of order sought and pleas in law;Basis of liability;European ombudsman
Procedure: Action for damages

Action brought on 18 November 2005 - 'M' v Ombudsman (Case T-412/05) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant(s): 'M' (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer) Defendant(s): European Ombudsman Form of order sought The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should: hold that the European Community has incurred non-contractual liability under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC as a result of wrongful acts or omissions committed by the European Ombudsman in the performance of his duties, specifically as a result of the publication of his report 1288/99/OV wrongfully naming the applicant, and as a result of the European Ombudsman's negligence in investigating the matter and the incorrect conclusions he arrived at; consequently, order the European Community, represented by the European Ombudsman, to pay the applicant by way of compensation for professional and non-material damage and for damage to his health a sum provisionally assessed at EUR 150 000, without prejudice to any subsequent amendment in the course of the proceedings; order the European Community, represented by the European Ombudsman, to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments By complaint brought before the European Ombudsman, a group of citizens sought a finding that there had been an instance of maladministration within the Commission in its handling of a complaint lodged by those citizens against their national authorities. By decision issued on 18 July 2002, the Ombudsman found that there had been an instance of maladministration and unfair treatment of the complaint on the part of the Commission. The purpose of the present action, which has been brought by an official of the Commission unit responsible for handling the complaint at issue, is to seek compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of his having been named in person in Decision 1288/99/OV and alleged negligence by the European Ombudsman in his investigation of the complaint and in the conclusions he arrived at in that decision. The applicant contends that after the decision had been published he was named in a press release issued by the European Ombudsman, and this was reproduced in various newspapers and on internet websites, which caused him to suffer damage. In the applicant's view, the damage allegedly suffered is especially serious as he holds an important position and the publication of the European Ombudsman's decision could seriously undermine his professional integrity. The applicant bases his claim on the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, establishing the non-contractual liability of the European Community, which, according to the applicant, has been incurred in the present case as a result of the allegedly wrongful conduct on the part of the Ombudsman. In support of his claim, the applicant alleges that, in the present case, the Ombudsman committed a serious breach of his duties by naming individuals - including the applicant - in person in his report in breach of the principles of confidentiality and proportionality insofar as the publication of the applicant's name was not, in the applicant's view, absolutely necessary and could not be justified by any exception to the general rule of confidentiality 1. Moreover, the applicant claims that conduct of the Ombudsman and his staff constitutes a breach of the audi alterem partem principle, which forms a fundamental element of the right to a fair hearing. He also submits that it is forbidden to make an adverse judgment on a natural or legal person in a report that is to be published after general disclosure and is to be widely circulated. Lastly, the applicant also claims that, in adopting the decision at issue, the Ombudsman made an incorrect assessment of the facts and based himself on inadequate information. ____________ 1 - In support of his claim, the applicant relies, inter alia, on Case C-315/99 P ISMERI-EUROPA v Court of Auditors [2001] ECR I-5281.