5.

These grounds are to be found when we look at another complaint by the applicant, which, in one form or another, concerns the material accuracy of the opinion of the Establishment Board as well as the question whether the facts underlying that opinion should be regarded as relevant and in accordance with the object of the procedure. When making this complaint, the applicant obviously cannot require the Court to examine his knowledge and abilities, that is to say, to form an assessment of the sort which the Establishment Board is required to make, since this would mean that the Court would be acting in place of the Administration. Nevertheless, facts may be brought before the Court which constitute prima facie evidence that the Establishment Board erred in its assessment. This would be so, for example, if all the facts at our disposal concerning the various phases of the procedure made it appear that the opinion was unfounded, incomprehensible or contradictory. In my opinion, such evidence does exist in the present case. In saying this, I am certainly not thinking of the assertion, which frequently recurs in litigation concerning questions of integration, that the animosity of the applicant's immediate superior led him to make a false judgment of the applicant's abilities; indeed, just as in other cases, I imagine that the Court would not accept that argument, considering that the applicant's other superiors also arrived at a more or less unfavourable judgment. Nor do I propose, in the present context, to examine further the complaint that the applicant's immediate superior had not given him enough work from December 1961 onwards. This complaint would be important for deciding the case only if the behaviour of his superiors had robbed the applicant of any possibility of demonstrating his abilities, which, however, was obviously not the case for the period between November 1959 and November 1961. But other circumstances have some importance. In its opinion of 19 February 1963, the Establishment Board found, as the decisive factor in making its unfavourable assessment, that the applicant was lacking in certain respects in his abilities and knowledge, and also showed a lack of initiative. That was why, from a certain time onwards, he had been entrusted with duties of a level beneath that of the work which he had previously carried out. In this respect, critical observations are called for from several points of view. First of all, unless I am mistaken, the assessment by the Establishment Board is only partially justified by the reports from the applicant's superiors and by the statements which they made before it (for instance, as regards the applicant's degree of initiative). On the other hand, the oral and written comments by his superiors contain no trace of a statement which would have enabled the Establishment Board to ascertain that the applicant had been given work of an inferior level. Nor do any of the other documents produced in Court give any indication how the Establishment Board arrived at this assumption which is certainly important. For this reason alone, its entire assessment must therefore be regarded as defective. As regards the alleged inadequacy of the applicant's knowledge and abilities, the written report of his superiors, dated 11 April 1962, informs us that it was above all the applicant's knowledge of languages which had been criticized, and on several occasions. A similar emphasis was placed on knowledge of languages in the oral statements made by these officials to the Establishment Board and this matter was the subject of particular discussion at the hearing of the applicant himself. So the impression inevitably arises that the Establishment Board attached importance, when taking its final decision, to this type of knowledge. On the other hand, the Commission's representative stated emphatically during the oral procedure that knowledge of languages played no part in the integration ‘procedure, and that integration could never have been withheld from officials who did not fulfil the requirement of knowledge of a second language when they had entered the Communities’ service under the contractual regime. We are therefore fully entitled to ask whether the Establishment Board, in the applicant's case, was guilty of infringing a rule which is generally applied, by basing its unfavourable decision mainly upon an alleged inadequate knowledge of languages. It may also be supposed that the special emphasis put on knowledge of languages during the integration procedure misled the applicant and influenced the way in which he presented his case — which gives rise to further serious doubts as to whether the procedure followed the proper course. However, the following fact is even more important. The report on the applicant at the end of his probationary period, drawn up by the same official who assessed his abilities during the integration procedure, is not merely favourable but even exceptionally good. All the headings, including those described in the report dated 11 April 1962 as ‘requiring improvement’, contain the comment ‘very good’; two of them are even described as ‘exceptional’. Knowledge of a second language is marked as ‘fair’. The actual words of the superior's report were as follows: ‘I am entirely satisfied with this official. Levelheaded, thoughtful, and steadfast personality. Equable and friendly character. Spirit of initiative and great adaptability to the various tasks involved in his job’. Only one point — adaptability — is marked lower in this report, but even so with the comment ‘satisfactory’. Admittedly these comments date from 17 May 1960. But the applicant's personal file discloses that even on 16 December 1960 it was suggested that he should receive a higher classification, in view of his now proven abilities; this point is made expressly in a letter from the Directorate-General of Administration. And we also find that as late as 1 November 1961 the applicant was regarded as deserving of an increase in salary, and was classified in Grade A 4, Step 2. The only possible explanation is that at least until November 1961, that is to say, about six months before his superiors issued their unfavourable assessment, the applicant must have acquitted himself in a way that was not merely unexceptionable but also praiseworthy. Any other interpretation must be rejected, especially the assertion by the Commission's representative that the promotions and advancements occurred as a matter of course in the Euratom Commission, because that would be tantamount to saying that the Commission mismanages its administration. It is of course conceivable that an official's work may deteriorate in the course of time. It is also possible that this may have happened in the applicant's case, prior to the start of the integration procedure, although such a possibility is contradicted by the evidence of one of his superiors, Dr Michaelis, before the Establishment Board, that there had been an improvement in the applicant's work in comparison with earlier periods. But, faced with such a development, and after all the previous assessments and promotions, the least that must be required of the Administration is an unequivocal and plausible statement of reasons. If this is absent, as in the present case, the impression arises that no attention was paid to the previous favourable assessments, a fact which, in view of its importance, constitutes a serious defect in procedure. If, on the other hand, it is supposed that the Establishment Board had notice of these factors and failed to take them into consideration, this would also imply a serious mistake, because it cannot be right to assess the ability of an official, who has worked for the Commission in a commendable manner for several years, on the basis solely of his work over a comparatively short period. All told, we come to the conclusion that the substance of the opinion of the Establishment Board is open to criticism on several points. It must therefore not be taken into consideration as part of the basis for fixing the applicant's position in the administration, with the result that the Commission can decide on his final classification only after duly re-applying the integration procedure. It follows that the applicant is entitled to the emoluments derived from his previous contract of employment.