Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 September 1983. - Chryssanti Papageorgopoulos v Economic and Social Committee. - Probationary official - Dismissal. - Case 277/82.



European Court reports 1983 Page 02897



Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Keywords

OFFICIALS - RECRUITMENT - PROBATIONARY PERIOD - DISMISSAL

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , ART . 34 ( 2 ))

Parties

IN CASE 277/82

CHRYSSANTI PAPAGEORGOPOULOS , FORMERLY A PROBATIONARY OFFICIAL OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE , RESIDING AT 215 E VENIZELOU , ILIOPOULIS , ATHENS , REPRESENTED BY VICTOR BIEL OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR , 18 A RUE DES GLACIS , AND WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE AT HIS CHAMBERS ,

APPLICANT ,

V

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE , REPRESENTED BY MARIUS SIMOND , ACTING AS AGENT , ASSISTED BY YVETTE HAMILIUS OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR , 11 BOULEVARD ROYAL , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE AT HER CHAMBERS ,

DEFENDANT ,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION PRINCIPALLY FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE APPLICANT ' S REPORT AT THE END OF HER PROBATIONARY PERIOD AND OF HER DISMISSAL , AND FOR DAMAGES ,

Grounds

1 BY AN APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 15 OCTOBER 1982 MRS PAPAGEORGOPOULOS , A PROBATIONARY OFFICIAL OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE , BROUGHT AN ACTION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE REPORT AT THE END OF HER PROBATIONARY PERIOD AND OF THE DECISION TO DISMISS HER ADOPTED ON THE BASIS THEREOF , AND ALSO FOR PAYMENT BY THE DEFENDANT OF HER SALARY AND EMOLUMENTS FROM 1 JANUARY 1982 TOGETHER WITH DAMAGES AND INTEREST THEREON IN COMPENSATION FOR NON-MATERIAL INJURY .

2 AS A RESULT OF AN OPEN COMPETITION FOR THE RECRUITMENT OF TYPISTS , THE APPLICANT WAS ENGAGED BY THE DEFENDANT ON 1 JULY 1981 AS A PROBATIONARY OFFICIAL .

3 THE REPORT AT THE END OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD WAS DRAWN UP ON 27 NOVEMBER 1981 AND COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT ON 30 NOVEMBER . THE MENTION ' ' INSUFFICIENT ' ' APPEARED UNDER THE HEADING ' ' ABILITY ' ' WITH REGARD TO USE OF SKILLS IN CARRYING OUT DUTIES - ABILITY TO EXPRESS HERSELF IN WRITING , AND FOR VERSATILITY , AND UNDER THE HEADING ' ' EFFICIENCY ' ' FOR QUALITY AND EXECUTION OF WORK . UNDER THE HEADING ' ' GENERAL ASSESSMENT ' ' THE FOLLOWING REASONS WERE GIVEN FOR THE ' ' INSUFFICIENT ' ' RATINGS :

' ' ALTHOUGH MRS PAPAGEORGOPOULOS ' PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SKILLS MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE SATISFACTORY , THERE ARE SERIOUS DEFICIENCIES IN HER KNOWLEDGE OF HER MOTHER TONGUE ( GREEK ) AS A RESULT OF WHICH HER WORK IS DEFINITELY INADEQUATE AS REGARDS BOTH QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE .

MOREOVER , THE OBSERVATIONS WHICH WERE PUT TO HER ON THAT SUBJECT REVEALED THAT SHE HAD THE GREATEST DIFFICULTY IN ACCEPTING THE AUTHORITY OF HER SUPERIORS , IN WORKING AS A MEMBER OF A TEAM AND THUS IN ADAPTING HERSELF TO THE WORKING METHODS OF THE INSTITUTION . ' '

4 THE REPORT CONCLUDED WITH A NEGATIVE ASSESSMENT REGARDING THE ABILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO CARRY OUT HER DUTIES , HAVING REGARD TO HER ABILITY , HER EFFICIENCY AND HER CONDUCT IN THE SERVICE .

5 THE REPORT WAS DRAWN UP BY MR VERMEYLEN , HEAD OF DIVISION , AND WAS SIGNED BY MR FARENZENA , HEAD OF THE TYPING POOL , MRS DE OLIVEIRA , ACTING HEAD OF THE POOL , AND MRS PALLIS , HEAD OF THE GREEK POOL .

6 BY A MEMORANDUM OF 4 DECEMBER 1981 THE APPLICANT DISPUTED THE REPORT .

7 BY DECISION OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE OF 21 DECEMBER 1981 , NOTIFIED TO THE APPLICANT ON 22 DECEMBER , SHE WAS DISMISSED WITH EFFECT FROM 31 DECEMBER 1981 .

8 ON 18 MARCH 1982 THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DECISION TO DISMISS HER . THE COMPLAINT WAS REJECTED BY DECISION OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE DATED 15 JULY 1982 .

9 IN HER APPLICATION , MRS PAPAGEORGOPOULOS ALLEGES THAT THERE IS AN INADEQUATE STATEMENT OF THE GROUNDS FOR THE REPORT , A LACK OF OBJECTIVITY AND AN IMPLICIT INCONSISTENCY , BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION AND OF THE DUTY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE , AND FINALLY MISUSE OF POWERS INASMUCH AS MRS PALLIS , WHO SIGNED THE REPORT , DID SO IN ORDER TO RID HERSELF OF A COMPETITOR FOR THE POST OF HEAD OF THE GREEK POOL .

10 IN SUPPORT OF THOSE SUBMISSIONS THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT MRS PALLIS WAS HER COMPETITOR FOR THE POST OF HEAD OF THE GREEK POOL AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY HER ASSESSMENT WAS NOT OBJECTIVE . SHE ALSO MAINTAINS THAT MRS AMARANTIDOU , WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE POOL FOR AT LEAST HALF OF THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD , OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSULTED .

11 IT APPEARS FROM THE FILE THAT MRS PALLIS WAS TEMPORARILY PLACED IN CHARGE OF THE GREEK SECTION OF THE TYPING POOL BY DECISION OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1981 WITH EFFECT FROM 1 OCTOBER AND THAT WHEN THE REPORT WAS DRAFTED SHE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SECTION . IT IS SOUND ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE FOR THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE RELEVANT SECTION TO GIVE HER ASSESSMENT OF THE ABILITY OF A PROBATIONARY OFFICIAL . AS FOR THE APPLICANT ' S COMPLAINT THAT MRS AMARANTIDOU ' S OPINION HAD NOT BEEN SOUGHT , IT APPEARS THAT THE LATTER , A MEMBER OF THE TEMPORARY STAFF , HAD NEVER BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A WRITTEN DECISION PLACING HER IN CHARGE OF THE GREEK SECTION OF THE TYPING POOL , BUT THAT SHE HAD BEEN ASKED TO COORDINATE THE WORK OF THE GREEK POOL UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE HEAD OF THE TYPING POOL . MRS AMARANTIDOU WAS ONLY ABLE TO OBSERVE THE APPLICANT ' S WORK FROM 1 JULY TO 17 AUGUST , AFTER WHICH SHE WENT ON LEAVE . MRS AMARANTIDOU LEFT THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE ON 27 AUGUST , EVEN BEFORE THE REPORT WAS DRAWN UP . HER OPINION WAS THEREFORE NOT REQUIRED .

12 THE REPORT WAS COMPILED BY THE HEAD OF DIVISION AND COUNTERSIGNED BY THE HEAD OF THE TYPING POOL , BY MRS DE OLIVEIRA , WHO WAS ACTING HEAD OF POOL DURING THE ABSENCE OF HER SUPERIOR , AND BY THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE GREEK POOL , INDICATING THEIR AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSMENT CONTAINED IN THE REPORT . THERE IS A SUFFICIENT STATEMENT OF THE GROUNDS FOR THE NEGATIVE ASSESSMENTS IN THE GENERAL ASSESSMENT , TO WHICH REFERENCE IS MADE . THE REPORT WAS , THEREFORE , PROPERLY DRAWN UP AND REASONED .

13 WITH REGARD TO MISUSE OF POWERS THE APPLICANT HAS NOT OFFERED THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER ALLEGATION AND IT MUST THEREFORE BE SET ASIDE .

14 AS TO THE APPLICANT ' S OTHER COMPLAINTS , SHE HAS MERELY SET THEM OUT IN THE APPLICATION WHILST RESERVING THE RIGHT TO ELABORATE UPON THEM IN HER REPLY IF NECESSARY . NO FURTHER CLARIFICATION OR ELABORATION OF THOSE COMPLAINTS WAS PRESENTED DURING THE LATER STAGES OF THE PROCEDURE . IT IS THEREFORE NOT NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THEM .

Decision on costs

COSTS

15 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . HOWEVER , ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT , IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY OFFICIALS OF THE COMMUNITIES , THE INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )

HEREBY RULES :

1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED ;

2 . THE PARTIES SHALL PAY THEIR OWN COSTS .