3.

Let us deal now with the case in point. Given the circumstances described at the beginning, must it be said that the Commission was under a duty to conduct an inquiry? And did the inquiry carried out in this case comply with the obligations under Article 24? As regards the first question, some doubt might arise from the fact that the subject of the argument was essentially extraneous to the work of the institution: as far as can be ascertained from the evidence obtained, it was rather matters of a personal nature that were involved. Moreover, one cannot overlook the fact that the argument degenerated into a brawl, and that one of the participants (Mrs. V.) sustained personal injuries which were immediately verified by the Medical Department. In view of that, I am of the opinion that the Administration was under a duty to carry out investigations. It remains for us to examine the second question. As far as can be ascertained rom the pleadings, the Commission's inquiry took place in two different stages. Mrs Delfausse, Principal Administrative Assistant in the Individual Rights and Privileges Division, listened to Mrs V's account of the incident directly after it took place and invited her to undergo an immediate medical examination and then to submit a written account. The applicant was in fact examined by the doctor on duty at the Commission, who certified that she had slight injuries. As we know, Mr T. also sent a written account of the incident to the Directorate General for Personnel immediately after it occurred. The Administration was at that stage in possession of three important documents to enable them to reconstruct the facts: the statements of the two persons concerned and the medical report. Having acquired those items the Administration took two further steps: in the first place, it had certain investigations carried out by its own security department (a claim made by the Commission and not denied by the other parry) and, secondly, it had meetings with trade union representatives to consider the facts and discuss possible measures (see, on this point, the confidential note of 18 November 1976 from the Directorate General for Personnel signed by Mr Delauche). The meetings with the trade union representatives were particularly appropriate in this case because the altercation took place in the Staff Committee's offices and involved the Committee's Secretary and an employee attached to it. Thereafter the Administration came to the conclusion that it was not obliged to take disciplinary or other measures against the two officials involved in the altercation: in fact — as the Director General, Mr Baichère, explained in his letter of 21 April 1977 — it had not been possible to ascertain ‘the exact responsibility of each of the persons concerned for the events which took place’. Later, in March 1978, after the present action had been brought, the Administration obtained the statements of two witnesses, Mrs Nicaise and Mrs Joundy, who had been present at part of the incident. According to the Commission's defence, both those witnesses had already been questioned orally at the time of the incident by the internal security department. That claim, contained in the Commission's defence, dated 21 August 1978 (p. 2) has not been proved and I consider that, if it is true that the two witnesses were questioned immediately after the incident, it is most regrettable that the two statements were not then taken down in writing; equally regrettable, moreover, is the fact that the results of the inquiry by the security department were not written down. In spite of that, I do not think that those failings are of such importance as to constitute an infringement of Article 24. The Commission sought to establish what had occurred and although its attempts to ascertain the origins of the incident and the responsibility of the persons involved have not been successful, that is not due to the fact that it omitted to undertake some inquiry or provide some form of assistance to the two officials concerned. The evidence of the two witnesses whose written statements were belatedly obtained confirms the difficulty of ascertaining precisely the responsibility of each of the two officials, and thus demonstrates that the cautious attitude adopted by the Administration following the inquiry was, in the last analysis, reasonable. Of course it would be different if the Administration had adopted a measure capable of prejudicing the applicant's rights under the Staff Regulations. But I do not think that the applicant has suffered any damage as a result of the Administration's attitude; in fact she has continued her career and has worked at the Commission without hindrance, and her transfer to another office was not — as I shall explain shortly — of a disciplinary nature. Moreover, I do not think it possible to accuse the Administration of having failed to adopt the measures which the case required: indeed it is difficult to imagine what other steps the Administration could, or should, have taken, even if the inquiry had been conducted more thoroughly. Thus, it appears that the incomplete nature of the inquiries, referred to above, is of marginal importance and not such as to constitute a breach of the obligation to assist.