BE WILLING TO APPEAR BEFORE ANY COURT , IN OTHER WORDS NOT ONLY BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE , TO CONFIRM ON OATH THE STATEMENTS HE HAD MADE . MOREOVER , THE APPLICANT ' S CONDUCT AFTER HE HAD LEFT ROCHE GAVE THE COMMISSION GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS A MATTER OF INDIFFERENCE TO HIM WHETHER HE WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE INFORMANT , SINCE HE HAD NOT EVEN INFORMED THE COMMISSION OF HIS NEW ADDRESS . ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION THE FACT THAT IT REPEATEDLY DECLINED TO IDENTIFY ITS INFORMANT IN NO WAY ESTABLISHES THAT IT CONSIDERED ITSELF BOUND BY A DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY . ITS CONDUCT WAS DICTATED ENTIRELY BY ITS GENERAL PRACTICE OF NOT DIVULGING THE IDENTITY OF ITS INFORMANTS .
32 IN ANY EVENT THE COMMISSION CONTENDS THAT EVEN IF IT WERE UNDER A DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY REGARDING THE APPLICANT ' S IDENTITY , IT DID NOT ACT IN BREACH OF THAT DUTY . THE FACT THAT IT HANDED OVER PHOTOCOPIES TO THE ROCHE EMPLOYEES DID NOT AMOUNT TO SUCH A BREACH , SINCE IT COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN FORESEEN THAT ROCHE WOULD BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE SOURCE OF THE DOCUMENTS BY EXAMINING THE COPIES . THE APPLICANT NEVER REQUESTED THE COMMISSION NOT TO DISCLOSE THOSE DOCUMENTS TO ROCHE . ON THE OTHER HAND , HE AGREED THAT THE COMMISSION COULD USE THE DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH AN INVESTIGATION OF THAT FIRM . THE COMMISSION HAD CONSIDERED THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO DISCLOSE THEM TO ROCHE BUT IT NEVERTHELESS TOOK CARE TO REMOVE ANYTHING WHICH LOOKED AS THOUGH IT MIGHT INDICATE THEIR SPECIFIC SOURCE . MOREOVER , THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION HAD NO EVIDENT CONNECTION WITH THE APPLICANT , WHO COULD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED ONLY BY SOMEONE WITH A HIGHLY DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORGANIZATION AND THE OPERATION OF ROCHE . THE APPLICANT HAD NEVER WARNED THE COMMISSION OF SUCH A RISK .
33 AS REGARDS THE POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF A DUTY ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION TO WARN THE APPLICANT , THE COMMISSION CONTENDS THAT SUCH A DUTY CANNOT BE INFERRED FROM ANY DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY WHICH MAY HAVE EXISTED . IN SO FAR AS THE APPLICANT IS PUTTING FORWARD A SEPARATE SUBMISSION IN THIS RESPECT , THE COMMISSION ADDS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH IN LAW THAT , FOLLOWING DR ALDER ' S VISIT , IT WAS UNDER A DUTY TO WARN THE APPLICANT OF THE RISKS THAT HE WOULD RUN IF HE RETURNED TO SWITZERLAND . IN ADDITION , THE COMMISSION HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ROCHE WOULD BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE APPLICANT AS THE INFORMANT . FINALLY , DURING HIS TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH DR ALDER AT THE BEGINNING OF FEBRUARY 1975 , MR SCHLIEDER REVEALED NOTHING THAT ROCHE AND THE SWISS AUTHORITIES DID NOT ALREADY KNOW , SINCE BY THEN THE APPLICANT HAD ALREADY ADMITTED THAT HE WAS THE COMMISSION ' S INFORMANT .
34 AS REGARDS THE EXISTENCE OF A DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY IT