1.

The facts in this case may be summarized as follows: The applicant, Miss Maria Mascetti, an Italian citizen, who was employed from 1 March 1961 as a principal secretary at the Joint Nuclear Research Centre at Ispra did not report for work as from 18 November 1974. By a letter of 9 January 1975 the Personnel and Administration Service of the Centre notified Miss Mascetti that the Administration had received her request (the date of the request is not stated nor does a copy appear on the file) to have her absence set off against her annual leave until it was used up, that is until the morning of 10 December 1974. Nevertheless, she had not resumed work on the said morning nor did she provide a medical certificate to justify her prolonged absence. Therefore, in the said letter, the Administration stated that such absence was unauthorized as from 10 December and ordered the applicant immediately to resume work, unless she had valid reasons for not doing so, notifying her that it had suspended payment of her remuneration as is prescribed in cases of unauthorized absence in Article 60 of the Staff Regulations, which is stated to apply by analogy in Article 60 of the ‘Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities’, which apply to the applicant. On 30 January 1975 Miss Mascetti's lawyer forwarded to the Administration of the Centre at Ispra a request, dated 22 December 1974, in which his client asked for unpaid leave for one year on personal grounds under Article 40 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, which applies by analogy pursuant to Article 91 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities, with special reference to the staff of the Joint Nuclear Research Centre. In her request Miss Mascetti stated that for reasons of force majeure, namely legal proceedings instituted against her on a charge of a political nature, she could not report for work. In his covering letter Miss Mascetti's lawyer stated that a warrant for her arrest was in force, issued on 14 December 1974 in criminal proceedings pending before the Ufficio d'Istruzione (examining judge) of the Tribunale di Roma. On 20 February 1975 the Administration of the Centre at Ispra replied to Miss Mascetti that it was unable to grant her request ‘because the reasons advanced provide no justification whatever for granting leave on personal grounds’. Furthermore, in that reply Miss Mascetti was reminded that her continued absence after 10 December 1974, which displayed all the characteristics of an unauthorized absence, sanctioned neither by the Staff Regulations nor by her superiors, constituted a serious failure to comply with the obligations deriving from her contract of employment as a member of the establishment staff. Then, with a view to disciplinary proceedings, Miss Mascetti was formally requested ‘to appear in person in the office of the Director of the Centre before 7 March 1975 to be heard in accordance with Article 87 of the Staff Regulations which applies by analogy to members of the establishment staff’. The letter ended as follows: ‘If you Jo not appear in person before that date I shall be obliged to conclude from your absence that you have relinquished your post and I shall be obliged to take the appropriate action.’ At this point Miss Mascetti, by a letter of 6 March 1975, submitted to the Commission a complaint under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations against the decision of refusal adopted in her case. However, the complaint was rejected by a decision of 11 August 1975 which was notified to her on 1 October 1975: the Commission stated that decisions concerning leave of absence are entirely discretionary and further observed: ‘The fact that your request was submitted when you were already guilty of relinquishing your post was in itself unlikely to have a favourable effect on the decision you have requested. Furthermore, in view of the nature of the grounds upon which you base your request, the decision to remain outside Italy is your sole responsibility and you take that decision entirely at your own risk. The Commission does not consider that it is obliged to abet you by means of a decision which, by absolving you from the contractual requirement of residence in Italy, would in effect amount to furthering your attempts to evade the investigations of the judicial authorities of your country.’ Miss Mascetti has submitted an application against this decision to the Court of Justice wherein she primarily criticizes the reasons stated for the original decision of refusal of 20 February 1975, which were repeated in the decision now contested. According to the applicant, the reason on which she relies to justify her request for leave of absence fulfils completely the conditions laid down in Article 40 since the grounds are undoubtedly of a personal nature and the applicant's circumstances are clearly exceptional, since it is necessary for her to go into hiding, pending judgment, in order to evade a measure depriving her of her liberty. Consequently, the inadequacy of the statement of reasons for the contested decision is such as to affect the validity of that decision and to require its annulment.