1 THE PRESENT CASE HAS ITS ORIGIN IN A LETTER OF 25 MARCH 1974 SENT TO THE COMMISSION BY THE DIRECTOR OF A BRUSSELS LOCKSMITH UNDERTAKING WHICH , UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE COMMISSION , MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION A WORK FORCE FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR WORK COORDINATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE APPLICANT .
2 THIS LETTER ACCUSED THE APPLICANT OF ' TERRORIZING ' THE WORKMEN AND ' TRYING TO DESTROY ' THE WORK FORCE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMUNITY ADMINISTRATION AND THE COMMISSION WAS INVITED TO ' CHANGE THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS ' .
3 THE COMMISSION , AFTER CONDUCTING AN INQUIRY WITH THE DISCRETION REQUIRED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES , INFORMED THE APPLICANT OF THE ACCUSATIONS MADE AGAINST HIM BUT ASSURED HIM THAT THEY WOULD INVOLVE HIM IN NO CONSEQUENCES .
4 THE APPLICANT , NOT SATISFIED WITH THIS ATTITUDE AND RELYING ON THE ALLEGEDLY INSULTING AND DEFAMATORY NATURE OF THE LETTER , MADE A COMPLAINT TO THE COMMISSION UNDER ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD ' ENSURE RESPECT FOR ARTICLE 24 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ' , INFORM THE APPLICANT OF THE RESULTS OF THE INQUIRY INTO THE FACTS IN QUESTION , PURSUE THE INQUIRY AND INFORM THE APPLICANT ' OFFICIALLY AND FULLY OF THE PARTICULARS IN THE FILE ' , TAKE A DECISION ' CLEARING HIM OF THE ACCUSATIONS ' MADE IN THE ABOVEMENTIONED LETTER AND GRANT HIM ' JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE NON-MATERIAL AND MATERIAL DAMAGE ' SUFFERED BY HIM ARISING FROM THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION HAD OMITTED TO AFFORD HIM THE ASSISTANCE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 24 .
5 THE APPLICANT CLAIMS IN HIS APPLICATION ( 1 ) THE ANNULMENT OF THE IMPLIED REJECTION OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED COMPLAINT , ( 2 ) THAT THE COURT SHOULD REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO ACKNOWLEDGE ' THAT THE ACCUSATIONS . . . ARE BASELESS ' AND SHOULD BRING SUCH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO THE NOTICE OF ALL PERSONS HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE DISPUTE , AND ( 3 ) ORDER THE COMMISSION TO PAY DAMAGES .
6 THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE APPLICANT IN HIS REPLY MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS MEANING THAT HE DOES NOT INTEND TO MAINTAIN THE SECOND CLAIM WITH THE RESULT THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO RULE ON THE OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY MADE BY THE COMMISSION WITH REGARD TO THIS CLAIM .
7 COMPLAINT IS MADE THAT THE COMMISSION HAS TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE APPLICANT DISREGARDED THE OBLIGATION TO ASSIST HIM UNDER THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 24 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS WHICH PROVIDES : ' THE COMMUNITY SHALL ASSIST ANY OFFICIAL IN ITS SERVICE , IN PARTICULAR IN PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ANY PERSON PERPETRATING THREATS , INSULTING OR DEFAMATORY ACTS OR UTTERANCES . . . TO WHICH HE . . . IS SUBJECTED BY REASON OF HIS POSITION OR DUTIES ' .
8 IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT TAKEN THE MEASURES NECESSARY TO RE-ESTABLISH THE APPLICANT ' S GOOD CHARACTER WHICH THE LETTER IN QUESTION SERIOUSLY IMPUGNED .
9 THIS LETTER WAS IN FACT SUCH AS TO QUESTION THE APPLICANT ' S INTEGRITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES AND TO DISCREDIT HIM IN THE EYES OF HIS SUPERIORS .
10 ARTICLE 24 REQUIRES THAT WHERE THERE ARE SERIOUS ACCUSATIONS AS TO THE INTEGRITY OF AN OFFICIAL IN CARRYING OUT HIS DUTIES , THE ADMINISTRATION SHOULD TAKE ALL NECESSARY STEPS TO ESTABLISH WHETHER THE ACCUSATIONS ARE JUSTIFIED AND WHERE THEY ARE NOT SHOULD REFUTE THEM AND DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO RESTORE THE GOOD NAME OF THE OFFICIAL CONCERNED .
11 THE ARGUMENT OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE OBLIGATION TO ASSIST APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE OFFICIAL INJURED HAS HIMSELF TAKEN THE INITIATIVE IN PURSUING THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTACKS AGAINST HIM CANNOT BE ACCEPTED .
12 IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS IT IS NECESSARY TO INQUIRE WHETHER IN THE PRESENT CASE THE COMMISSION HAS COMPLIED WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS .
13 IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT FOLLOWING THE LETTER IN QUESTION THE COMMISSION INSTITUTED AN INQUIRY CONDUCTED SO AS TO AVOID ANY PUBLICITY AND LEADING TO THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION NOTIFIED IN WRITING TO THE APPLICANT ' NOT TO PURSUE ' THE MATTER RAISED IN THE SAID LETTER , WHICH THUS WOULD ' NOT INVOLVE ANY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES ' FOR HIM .
14 SUCH A DECISION CLEARLY MEANS REFUTING THE ACCUSATIONS MADE AGAINST THE APPLICANT AND RE-ESTABLISHING HIS REPUTATION IN RELATION TO THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES .
15 IF THE COMMISSION HAD FOUND THE ACCUSATIONS JUSTIFIED , IF ONLY IN SUBSTANCE , IT WOULD NECESSARILY HAVE HAD TO DRAW THE CONSEQUENCES IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICANT .
16 NEVERTHELESS THE APPLICANT COMPLAINS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS CONDUCTED THE INQUIRY IN A QUESTIONABLE MANNER AND IN PARTICULAR HAS NOT CONFRONTED HIM WITH THE WRITER OF THE LETTER AND FURTHER HAS OMITTED ' TO CLARIFY THE MATTER ' BY NOTIFYING HIM OF THE RESULTS OF THE INQUIRY .
17 FIRST IT WAS FOR THE COMMISSION TO DECIDE WHETHER IT WAS APPROPRIATE OR NOT TO BRING THE ACCUSER AND ACCUSED TOGETHER TO CLARIFY AS FAR AS POSSIBLE THE FACTS IN QUESTION .
18 THE APPLICANT CANNOT COMPLAIN THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT EXPRESSED THE RESULTS OF THE INQUIRY MORE CLEARLY SINCE BY HIS CONDUCT HE HAS HIMSELF PREVENTED THE COMMISSION FROM GIVING A RULING WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MATTER .
19 HE HAS CONSTANTLY REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH THE REPEATED REQUEST OF HIS SUPERIORS TO MAKE WEEKLY REPORTS ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE WORK FORCE SUPPLIED TO THE COMMISSION BY THE UNDERTAKING IN QUESTION ALBEIT ONE OF THE CAUSES OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE UNDERTAKING AND THE APPLICANT WAS PRECISELY THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT REGARDED THE WORK FORCE AS INSUFFICIENTLY QUALIFIED .
20 SINCE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COMMISSION HAS FULLY SATISFIED THE OBLIGATIONS WHICH IT HAD WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICANT , ALL THE CLAIMS IN THE ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED .