7.

The arguments submitted by the Commission do not appear to me to be convincing. It became apparent during the hearing that the Commission had the means — in particular electronic data-processing facilities — to draw up, if not at the time of the adoption of the German legislation in question, then certainly in November 1982, a list of persons in receipt of a Community pension who were in a position similar to that of the applicant, of whom there were only eight. The Commission should have been aware of the applicant's affiliation to the German fund: the applicant declared that fact to the Community sickness fund in 1976 and she also subsequently sent that fund an account of her German refunds. The Commission cannot seriously deny that the precautionary measure of informing the persons concerned collectively through the Staff Courrier of 28 March 1983 was incapable, in view of the delay inherent in its distribution, of enabling those persons to make a declaration of disaffiliation from the German scheme in good time, namely before 31 March 1983. In that connection, it cannot rely on the extension of the time-limit granted by the German fund by letter of 6 April 1983 to one of the pensioners concerned since it appears that the pensioner in question had, as a precautionary measure, before the expiration of the aforementioned time-limit, submitted a declaration of disaffiliation on which the German fund had agreed merely to defer its final decision in order to allow the pensioner further time for reflection. Consequently, by failing to give the information to the applicant at the same time as it informed all the pensioners who had drawn its attention to their situation or to inform them collectively in an effective manner in good time, the Commission acted negligently. That was all the more serious since the circumstances created by it imposed a special duty of care towards all the persons concerned. Its decision to advise the pensioners who had expressed their concern to it to await the outcome of its discussions with the German authorities before proceeding with their individual declarations of disaffiliation is not in itself necessarily open to criticism. But in view of the delay thereby caused with regard to the mandatory time-limit laid down by the German legislation, when the time came the Commission should have been prompted to act in respect of all the pensioners of whom it knew or ought to have known and with all the care expected of an administrative authority seeking to preserve the financial entitlement of its officials. Consequently, it must be declared that the Commission has failed to provide the assistance which it is obliged to give under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations to all officials whose financial entitlement guaranteed by the Community is threatened by the decision of the German authorities to deduct double contributions (see in particular the Court's judgment of 9 November 1978 in Case 140/77 Verhaaf v Commission [1978] ECR 2117, paragraph 12 of the decision). More generally, the Commission has failed to comply with the principle of good administration under which each Community institution owes a particular duty of care to its retired officials who are, as a result of the termination of their service, cut off from their working environment and accordingly from the regular contacts which ensure that they are adequately informed (Joined Cases 33 and 75/79 Kuhner v Commission [1980] ECR 1677, paragraph 22 of the decision, and the Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mayras, in particular at p. 1708). Dr Sommerlatte's application for a declaration that the Commission is guilty of a wrongful omission which prevented her from submitting her declaration of disaffiliation from the German sickness insurance scheme to the German fund before 31 March 1983 is therefore well founded.