4.

Dr Scuppa quotes a whole series of developments which occurred after he took up his duties in his post as Head of Division E/3 to show that he suffered indignities of various kinds after being placed in a situation of, for practical purposes, de facto subordination to a colleague of the same grade (the person responsible for Division E/l); in other words, in a situation which could not be justified by the need for the latter merely to act as coordinator of the activities of the various divisions in a single directorate. He was systematically excluded from meetings which closely affected his division, he was kept in ignorance of the work of the Commission and of facts and information in which his division was interested; the officials immediately junior to him received instructions not only from his director, though he was not even informed of this (as will be seen from Annex 19 to the administrative complaint of 14 February 1973,) but also from his colleague, the Head of Division E/l. He was prevented from having any direct contact whatever with his superiors, who systematically refused to meet him or to reply to his requests for explanations or to his efforts to try to remove any misunderstandings. Requests submitted in scrupulously correct terms concerning the day-to-day requirements of the service met with discourteous replies and gratuituous accusations. I refer to specific facts which the applicant mentioned at the material time in notes communicated to his immediate superior, the truth of which has not been challenged by the Commission. The first point to be borne in mind is that, as revealed by document No 1641/VI/69 of 10 February 1969 (Annex No 5 to the administrative complaint), the decision to entrust Division E/l with the task of giving general guidance on work involving a whole series of important responsibilities borne by the applicant's division and by other divisions in the same directorate, constituted a general measure applicable within the directorate which had nothing to do with the applicant, who started work as divisional head subsequent to that date. Already, however, at the beginning of September 1969, the applicant notes that the Head of Division E/l was not confining himself to giving general guidance on policy concerning work in his division, but, in addition to calling on his colleague, the Head of Division E/3 for specific services (as I have already stated), he was dealing directly with the latter's subordinates, giving them their orders with very precise instructions concerning their work and exact time-limits for their performance. Incidents of this kind, which undoubtedly amounted to interference in a manner which was incompatible with the chain of responsibility and which did not fall within the range of tasks imposed on the Head of Division E/l to give general guidance, make it impossible to blame the applicant for expressing his reservations in clear and decisive terms as soon as he took up his duties as head of division (see note of 6 October 1969 to Mr Rencki, Head of Division E/l, copy to the Director, in Annex VI to the above-quoted complaint. Important changes in the applicant's responsibilities, were communicated to him at the last moment and without previous consultation after his subordinates had already been informed of them (see Annex 17 to the above-quoted administrative complaint). In Annex 20 there is a note dated 5 June 1972 addressed to Mr Craps, the Director, in which the applicant complains of being in constant need of the information necessary for the work of his division or of receiving it too late to make any use of it in discharging his responsibilities. A further observation on the same lines, dealing with a specific case, is contained in Annex 21, relating to a document dated 15 June 1972. To these respectful but clear and precise approaches by the applicant, the superior to whom they were addressed appears at no time to have replied. All efforts to clear up any misunderstandings and eliminate difficulties were simply ignored. In the note to his Director on 18 February 1972 the applicant had already explained the various problems with which he was faced in carrying out his responsibilities as head of division. This was a document of 18 pages packed with facts whose subject-matter was clearly summarized in the following terms; ‘Request for assurances of respect for — my duty (and my right) to fulfil my obligations to the Commission effectively, without the constant interference which I now have to suffer, as regards the assumption of my duties, my authority and the opportunities for access and information to which I am entitled as Head of Division VI — E/3; — my self-respect as a human being and as regards my occupation’. The applicant concluded this detailed list of complaints by asking his director to agree to meet him and, in a constructive spirit, have a frank discussion on the difficulties mentioned with a view to removing them and clearing the ground of a number of unnecessary problems. In his administrative complaint, the applicant expressed his disappointment at the total absence of any reply on the part of his director to this note as well, an assertion which has not been denied by the defendant. His director's refusal to have any direct contact with him is further evidenced by the notes addressed to the director dated 16 and 21 March 1973 (Annexes 2 and 9 to the administrative complaint). The obviously gratuituous accusations, crudely expressed in the note of reply addressed to the applicant on 21 March 1973 (Annex 8), create a strong impression of a want of objectivity and of balance on the part of the superior in dealing with his Head of Division. And what I would describe as the barrack-room manner in which, at a meeting with the Council, the same director ordered him to leave the room and make way for another official (incidentally one of a lower grade, as shown by Annex 4) does not appear conducive to good personal relationships in the service.