CELEX: C2006/074/67
Language: en
Date: 2006-03-25 00:00:00
Title: Case F-5/06: Action brought on  18 January 2006  — Patak Dennstedt v Commission

25.3.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 74/34
            
         Action brought on 18 January 2006 — Patak Dennstedt v Commission
   (Case F-5/06)
   (2006/C 74/67)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Dunja Patak Dennstedt (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, Y. Minatchy, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 4 October 2005 dismissing the applicant's objection taken together with the decision to reject the application previously submitted by the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 35 000 as compensation for the loss suffered;
            
         
               —
            
            
               In the alternative, order the withdrawal of the disputed document from the inquiry report of 18 September 2001;
            
         
               —
            
            
               In any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official receiving invalidity allowance, brought an action before the Court of First Instance for the annulment of certain decisions taken by the defendant. During those proceedings, she gained knowledge of a number of documents relating to internal Commission proceedings which concerned her and submitted an application, firstly, to obtain the withdrawal from the file of documents in which an official appeared to draw personal conclusions about the applicant's occupational illness and, secondly, to check whether the conduct of certain officials during a disciplinary procedure had complied with the requirements under the Staff Regulations.
   The application having been rejected, the applicant entered an objection, which was also dismissed by the appointing authority.
   In her action, the applicant first submits that the decision dismissing her objection is in breach of the defendant's obligations towards its officials. In her view, that decision infringes a number of general legal principles, such as the principle of good administration and the duty to have regard for the interests of officials.
   The applicant subsequently adds that the Commission officials who spread and even included in an inquiry report false information about her occupational illness were guilty of serious misconduct. That misconduct leads to liability on the part of the defendant, who should therefore pay compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant.