CELEX: C1999/174/16
Language: en
Date: 1999-06-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-8/99: Action brought on 14 January 1999 by Laurence Matic-Van de Vloet against European Parliament

19.6.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 174/7
     — Decision No 425/98, registered by the Secretariat-                Action brought on 14 January 1999 by Laurence Matic-
         General on 28 April 1998, dismissing Mrs Rudolph’s                        Van de Vloet against European Parliament
         complaint of 10 April 1998;
                                                                                                   (Case T-8/99)
     — Decision No 00037/IX.A6 of 7 December 1998 termi-
         nating the applicant’s employment as from 1 February                                    (1999/C 174/16)
         1999;
— Order the European Commission to pay the costs, includ-                                  (Language of the case: French)
     ing the fees and disbursements of the applicant’s lawyer.
                                                                         An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                         the Court of First Instance on 14 January 1999 by Laurence
                                                                         Matic-Van de Vloet, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
The applicant, at present an official in Grade C 4, was                  The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
appointed as a probationary official on 1 July 1995 and was
established on 1 January 1996. According to the applicant,               — Annul the implied decision rejecting the request made by
during the prescribed medical examination it did not occur to                the applicant on 5 December 1997 that the appointing
her to bring to the doctor’s attention the existence of a                    authority should take all appropriate measures concerning
pathological condition liable to cast doubt on her physical                  the disclosure of information from her personal file to a
fitness.                                                                     third party and to a Belgian judicial authority;
                                                                         — Annul the decision of 23 November 1998, of which the
By the decision of 17 November 1997, drafted in French and                   applicant became aware on 27 November 1998, signed by
notified to the applicant, the Commission declared that that                 the President of the European Parliament, expressly
medical examination for recruitment purposes was null and                    rejecting the applicant’s complaint, which was registered
void, criticising the applicant for failing to disclose all the              on 5 July 1988, against the implied decision rejecting her
necessary medical information, and required her to take a fresh              request;
medical examination in order to verify her physical fitness. By
letter of 9 January 1998 that decision was notified to the               — Order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety in
applicant in English.                                                        any event.
By decision of 7 December 1998 the appointing authority                  Pleas in law and main arguments
annulled the decisions appointing the applicant as a probation-
ary official and then as an official.
                                                                         The applicant is involved in a dispute with a crèche. According
                                                                         to her, documents produced in connection with the dispute
                                                                         were improperly forwarded, without her consent, to certain
Given that the applicant writes and understands only English             Belgian judicial authorities and to the Commission. The
and Swedish, she submits that all the earlier documents in               applicant seeks the assistance of the Parliament administration
French and all the meetings held in French must be regarded              on the basis of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations following
as null and void.                                                        the disclosure of those documents. By the contested decision,
                                                                         the defendant rejected the complaint against the implied
                                                                         decision rejecting her request as inadmissible.
She also alleges breach of medical confidentiality: the applicant
had informed her own doctor of her insignificant medical
history relating to 1986 and her doctor sent a medical report            The applicant alleges breach of the Staff Regulations, in
to the defendant.                                                        particular Articles 17, 19 and 26, and of general principles of
                                                                         law, in particular that of the protection of legitimate expec-
                                                                         tations and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials,
                                                                         and also misuse of powers.
The applicant criticises the composition of the medical com-
mittees, which was such that there was no guarantee or indeed
appearance of objectivity.                                               The applicant claims that the defendant cannot, without giving
                                                                         notice thereof to the official concerned and obtaining his prior
                                                                         consent, use, for the examination of any matter, be it
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the rights of the defence:      administrative or judicial, a document written or issued in
she was not able properly to defend herself because she did              relation to his personal situation or any request submitted
not have access to her entire medical file.                              by him in accordance with the Staff Regulations to the
                                                                         administration, in connection with the examination of a
                                                                         matter, be it administrative or judicial.