Case C-525/07 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2007 by Philippe Combescot against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-249/04 Philippe Combescot v Commission
Date: 2007-11-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, action by staff, appeal, indemnification, mental stress, professional career, psychological harassment, regulations for civil servants, report, staff assessment

C 37/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.2.2008

Appeal brought on 27 November 2007 by Philippe
Combescot against the judgment delivered by the Court of
First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-249/04 Philippe
Combescot v Commission

(Case C-525/07 P)

(2008/C 37/15)

Language of the case: Italian

therefore asks the Court

superiors, has caused suffering and mental anguish which has in
turn caused a severe state of depression, as substantiated in the
case-file and, above all, verified by the institution's own experts.
to make an overall
The applicant
assessment of the factual circumstances surrounding the matter,
considering them all to be relevant in order to declare the
unlawfulness of the CDR and therefore, declare that the appli-
cant
is entitled to compensation in damages for the harm
suffered.

Parties

Appellant: Philippe Combescot (represented by: A. Maritati and
V. Messa, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

— declare, by varying the decision of

the Court of First
Instance delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-249/04,
that the career development report (‘the CDR’) drawn up by
Mr M, despite his being completely unsuitable to perform, as
in fact he did, the role of hierarchical superior responsible
for appraising Mr Combescot's professionalism, is unlawful;
recognise that unsuitability arising from the serious and irre-
mediable enmity between the applicant and his hierarchical
latterly implicitly recognised by Mr M himself;
superior,
accordingly,
to
compensation in respect of non-material damage, damage to
physical and mental health and damage to his professional
life and career,
less than
EUR 100 000;

to be assessed in a sum not

recognise Mr Combescot's

entitlement

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The dispute relates to the preparation of the CDR for the period
from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, which was held to be
lawful. The applicant challenges the conclusions reached by the
Court of First Instance inasmuch as it regards the CDR as
unlawful because it was prepared by an individual, Mr M, who
was moved by a deep loathing of Mr Combescot, since the latter
had reported very serious management irregularities committed
at the Delegation in Guatemala by the same Mr M. Following
those complaints, the institution sent an inspection to Guate-
mala and, subsequently, as a result of the complaint brought by
Mr Combescot, OLAF decided on 20 September 2004 to open
an enquiry, concluded by the final report of 30 May 2006 (‘the
OLAF Report’), admitted as evidence in the present proceedings,
together with the report drawn up by the inspection committee
sent out
for
Mr Combescot ask the Court to vary the decision of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in so far as it
excludes the unlawfulness of the CDR and, accordingly, rules
out the applicant's entitlement to compensation in damages. By
that appeal the applicant asks the Court, therefore, to find and
declare that, as a result of the incomplete and thus erroneous
and in any event unlawful preparation of
the CDR for
2001-2002, Philippe Combescot has suffered very serious harm
to his career and to his professional
in any
event, the assessment in the CDR, placed in a broader context
of abuses of power and disparaging conduct of hierarchical

in 2002. By the present

image and that,

counsel

appeal,

it

that

recognises

the Court

the initiatives

the decision of

The applicant complains that
is
contradictory, in that it states how the objectives of indepen-
dence and integrity are to be regarded as binding in all situa-
tions in which an employee must express an opinion on a given
matter and such an employee should not therefore find himself
in a situation which, irrespective of the objectivity and fairness
of the opinion, may appear to lack independence and objectivity
in the eyes of third parties, yet none the less reaches conclu-
sions, in the case of M, which are completely incomprehensible.
The applicant also complains that the decision is contradictory,
in so far as
taken by
Mr Combescot, once he had taken office as Advisor resident in
Guatemala, had caused at the very least an unpleasant situation
for Mr M, but that notwithstanding, takes the view that that
situation was not such as to place Mr M in a situation in which
it was completely incompatible for him to perform the task of
assessor in accordance with the principles of impartiality and
neutrality. It points out that the preparation of the CDR involves
the making of a discretionary evaluation, so that any considera-
tion as to the substance of the evaluation itself is of no conclu-
sive value and is not suitable for confirming and/or disproving
the basic fact which is that Mr M made the assessment in the
CDR despite the obvious and serious enmity in his relationship
with Mr Combescot.
the
In that regard,
presence of a person as a co-appraisor who is completely
unconnected with the relationship between Mr Combescot
cannot be advanced as a solution. Accordingly, it criticises the
content of the CDR point by point. Finally, the applicant applies
for measures of enquiry.

it points out

that

Appeal brought on 27 November 2007 by Philippe
Combescot against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September
2007 in Case T-250/04 Combescot v Commission

(Case C-526/07 P)

(2008/C 37/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Philippe Combescot (represented by: A. Maritati and
V. Messa, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European