CELEX: C2006/178/23
Language: en
Date: 2006-07-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-230/05 P: Order of the Court of  27 April 2006  — L v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Harassment — Commission's duty to provide assistance — Liability — Refusal by the Court of First Instance to allow the examination of witnesses — Offer of supplementary evidence which did not exist at the closing of the written procedure — Refusal to withdraw an allegedly defamatory document from the file — Obligation to provide reasons — Principal of sound administration — Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible)

29.7.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 178/14
            
         Order of the Court of 27 April 2006 — L v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-230/05 P) (1)
   
   (Appeal - Officials - Harassment - Commission's duty to provide assistance - Liability - Refusal by the Court of First Instance to allow the examination of witnesses - Offer of supplementary evidence which did not exist at the closing of the written procedure - Refusal to withdraw an allegedly defamatory document from the file - Obligation to provide reasons - Principal of sound administration - Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible)
   (2006/C 178/23)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: L (represented by: P. Legros and S. Rodrigues, avocats)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curral, Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, avocat)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2005 in Case T-254/02 L v Commission in which the Court of First Instance dismissed, first, the action for annulment of the decisions of the Commission rejecting the request for assistance, access to documents and compensation and refusing to recognise an occupational disease and, secondly, the claim for damages for the loss suffered as a result of those decisions
   Operative part of the order
   
               1.
            
            
               The appeal is dismissed;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.