2.

The immediate cause of the present dispute was the memorandum headed ‘Falsification of Experiment Results’ addressed on 4 May 1971 by the Head of Division, Mr Malvicini, under whom the applicant worked, to Dr. Caprioglio, Director-General of the Euratom Joint Research Centre at Ispra. In this document, the applicant, a scientific officer at the Centre, was accused of having, with the object of making it appear that a particular result had been obtained, falsified the experimental data concerning research on isotope separation on which he was engaged in conjunction with the Euratom Biology Department. The same accusation was repeated in a memorandum addressed by Mr Malvicini on 6 July 1971 to Director-General Caprioglio, in which he castigated Mr Guillot for having contrived ‘to alter the values of experimental results so as to make it appear that a certain effect had been obtained’. In the course of the subsequent proceedings, an internal note of 20 October 1971 from Mr Malvicini came to light; this note, of which the applicant denies having had any previous knowledge, sets out in greater detail the facts on which the accusations made against Mr Guillot are based. As this is a document of some importance, which came to light late in the day, I think it would be helpful to quote its central passage at length: ‘When Mr Guillot sent me the results of the measurements carried out from the time the experiment began (at 9.46 on 28 April) until 11.25 on 29 April, together with the printer tapes of the analyser, he included only the results of 11 out of the 14 measurements carried out between 11.35 on 29 April and 7.10 on 30 April. When, on the following day, 1 May, I prepared to plot the points of the final measurements, I realized that I did not have the printer tapes for them. I went to the office, thinking I had left them on the table, but they were not there. But in a waste-paper basket I found a strip of tape from an Olivetti computer showing the spectrum values of the last six measurements. These values did not correspond with those given me by Mr Guillot. On the morning of Monday 3 May, Mr Guillot, in answer to my questions, assured me that the data he had given me were those provided by the analyser, without any alteration. When I made it clear to him that I was in possession of the data shown on the computer tape, he could give no explanation and left the building. My suspicions aroused, I recovered all the snips from the printer and computer tape from the dustbins. In the afternoon Mr Guillot returned and stated that he had made the necessary corrections to the measurement readings after finding, when he was taking down the apparatus on 30 April, that the flask holding the radioactive mixture was tilted. In support of this statement, he produced a note containing serious accusations against me, together with a technical appendix of eight pages of calculations, tables and graphs, to prove that the recalculation applied to the results of the last six measurements was a correction, rendered necessary by the tilting of the flask, to bring them into line with the values obtained on 29 April. After piecing together the printer slips, I was surprised to see that the data obtained after 11.35 on 29 April has also been corrected “as necessary” and realized why, when he was preparing the technical appendix, Mr Guillot had asked me in writing for a list of the spectra in my possession.’ For the time being, it is unnecessary to go into further details concerning the dispute which arose from Mr Malvicini's strictures, or the explanations given by the applicant concerning the need for a correcting factor (and its effectiveness) which, contrary to what is stated in the note quoted above from Mr Malvicini, the former declares he applied exclusively to the last part of his study in order to allow for an accidental movement of an instrument used in the experiment, but there can be no doubt that the terms employed in reference to the applicant reflect on his professional integrity and seriously compromise him in the scientific circles in which he is called upon to work. The applicant alleges that there has for some time been some unpleasantness in the relations between him and Mr Malvicini, so much so that he regards himself as being the object of systematic persecution on the part of his Head of Division. The applicant states that a good example of this was the earlier refusal to allow him to publish an article on some results of his researches, which led to an action being brought before this Court (Case 91/71), though it did not proceed to judgment because authority to publish was later granted. It is, on the other hand, clear from Annexes I, II and XVI of the statement of defence that a number of other scientific officers at the Ispra Centre, apart from Mr Malvicini, had said that they were not in favour of publication, which was eventually granted expressly on condition that the author accepted full and sole responsibility for his views. Among other examples adduced by the applicant as evidence of alleged prejudice against him are the fact that, in contrast with his colleagues and staff junior to him, he has not for many years received any promotion or bonus, and the rejection of his requests to be allowed to take part in study groups on the subjects with which he is concerned. But there is no point in dwelling on these details. For our purpose, a reference to them will have conveyed something of the difficult personal and professional relationship which underlie the events which have occurred and in the light of which these events must be reviewed.