1 BY APPEAL SUBMITTED ON 25 JULY 1972, THE APPLICANT SOUGHT ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF 14 APRIL 1972 REJECTING HIS COMPLAINT OF 3 JANUARY 1972 IN WHICH HE REQUESTED ( I ) WITHDRAWAL OF CERTAIN ACCUSATIONS MADE AGAINST HIM BY HIS SUPERIOR ( II ) ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION NOT TO AUTHORIZE HIM TO CONTINUE HIS EXPERIMENTS AND ( III ) GRANT OF DAMAGES IN RESPECT OF THE ACCUSATIONS MADE AGAINST HIM AND OF THE BAN ON HIS GOING ON WITH HIS WORK . ON THE FIRST AND SECOND HEADS OF CLAIM
2 THE APPLICANT RELIES ON THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE WHICH REQUIRES THE EMPLOYER TO LOOK AFTER THE INTERESTS OF HIS EMPLOYEES, AND ON THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 24 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, WHICH IMPOSES ON THE COMMUNITY A DUTY TO ASSIST AN OFFICIAL WHO BECOMES A VICTIM OF CERTAIN MISDEEDS .
3 APART FROM THE DUTIES WHICH FALL ON THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER ARTICLE 24 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE AS WELL AS THOSE OF GOOD MANAGEMENT DEMAND THAT IF SERIOUS ACCUSATIONS, REFLECTING ON THE PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY OF AN OFFICIAL IN CARRYING OUT HIS DUTIES, ARE MADE BY A SUPERIOR, THE ADMINISTRATION SHOULD TAKE ALL NECESSARY STEPS TO ESTABLISH WHETHER THE ACCUSATIONS ARE JUSTIFIED .
4 IF, AFTER THIS HAS BEEN DONE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ACCUSATIONS CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED, IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION TO REFUTE THEM AND TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO RESTORE THE GOOD NAME OF THE OFFICIAL CONCERNED .
5 IN ANY CASE, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON IT NOT TO GIVE THE ACCUSATIONS ANY PUBLICITY BEYOND WHAT IS STRICTLY NECESSARY .
6 IT IS ACCEPTED, IN THIS CASE, THAT A SERIOUS ACCUSATION HAS BEEN MADE AGAINST THE APPLICANT BY HIS SUPERIOR .
7 AFTER HAVING ASKED THE APPLICANT FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE EXPERIMENTS IN DISPUTE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH WHETHER DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE INSTITUTED AGAINST HIM, THE COMMISSION, IN THE PERSON OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE AT ISPRA, IN THE END DECIDED NOT TO INSTITUTE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPLICANT .
8 THIS DECISION WAS COMMUNICATED TO HIM ONLY IN THE COMMISSION'S REPLY OF 14 APRIL 1972 REJECTING HIS COMPLAINT THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE CHANNELS .
9 IN HIS COMPLAINT OF 3 JANUARY 1972 THE APPLICANT APPLIED TO THE COMMISSION FOR 'WRITTEN WITHDRAWAL, WITH APOLOGIES, OF ( THE ) ACCUSATIONS, AND RECOGNITION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE RESULTS I HAVE OBTAINED FROM THE EXPERIMENTS ...'.
10 THOUGH THIS REQUEST COULD BE MORE HAPPILY PHRASED, NEVERTHELESS, IN VIEW OF THE APPLICANT'S NOTE OF 8 NOVEMBER 1971 ACCORDING TO WHICH HE WISHED 'TO KNOW THE OUTCOME OF THE INQUIRY WHICH HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE MAY ... AND TO KNOW WHAT DECISION YOU HAVE TAKEN', IT CAN ONLY BE TAKEN AS A REQUEST ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSION TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION AND, IN THE EVENT OF THE ACCUSATIONS OF BAD FAITH PROVING TO BE WITHOUT FOUNDATION, TO ENSURE THAT THEY BE WITHDRAWN .
11 FOR ITS FAILURE TO GIVE AN EXPRESS REPLY ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE REQUEST IN ITS LETTER OF 14 APRIL 1972 THE COMMISSION MUST BE REGARDED AS HAVING TAKEN A DECISION TO REFUSE AN INQUIRY .
12 IN NEGLECTING TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO INVESTIGATE THE TRUTH OF THE ACCUSATIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANT'S SUPERIOR AND, MORE SPECIFICALLY, TO CONDUCT A CONCLUSIVE INVESTIGATION, THE COMMISSION FAILED IN ITS DUTY TO THE APPLICANT .
13 THIS WAS AGGRAVATED BY THE COMMISSION'S FAILURE TO TAKE THE REQUISITE STEPS TO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS NO PUBLICATION OF THE ACCUSATIONS BEYOND WHAT WAS STRICTLY NECESSARY .
14 IN VIEW OF THIS THE COMMISSION'S REFUSAL TO UNDERTAKE AN INQUIRY SHOULD BE ANNULLED .
15 IN THE APPLICATION INITIATING PROCEEDINGS, THE APPLICANT ASKED THE COURT TO DIRECT THAT WITNESSES, A LIST OF WHOM HE PROVIDED, SHOULD BE CALLED UPON TO VERIFY THE FACTS .
16 IN ITS DEFENCE, THE COMMISSION EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTS WERE 'DEVOID OF FOUNDATION AND THEREFORE UNJUSTIFIED '.
17 IN ITS REJOINDER, THE COMMISSION CONTENDED THAT THE COURT 'SHOULD DIRECT THAT THE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS BE MADE FOR THE FACTS RELATING TO THE EXPERIMENTS OF 28, 29 AND 30 APRIL 1971 TO BE INVESTIGATED BY AN EXPERT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANALYSING ALL THE PAPERS OF THE APPLICANT AND OF HIS SUPERIOR' WHICH ARE OF A PURELY SCIENTIFIC CHARACTER .
18 AFTER THE HEARING, THE COMMISSION RENEWED ITS OFFER TO REFER THE SCIENTIFIC ISSUES TO AN EXPERT .
19 THUS, THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS, THE COMMISSION HAS WILFULLY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S CLAIMS .
20 THE APPLICANT'S COMPLAINT, EXPLAINED AFRESH AT THE HEARING, IS THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOTHING AND THUS CREATED A PROBLEM WHICH, WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME, BECAME INCREASINGLY SERIOUS .
21 IT IS THUS NECESSARY TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE INQUIRY WHICH THE COMMISSION OUGHT TO HAVE UNDERTAKEN WAS TO SEEK EVIDENCE AS TO THE TRUTH OF THE ACCUSATIONS REFLECTING ON THE APPLICANT'S INTEGRITY .
22 NOW THAT THE COMMISSION'S REFUSAL HAS BEEN ANNULLED, IT MUST CARRY OUT THIS OBLIGATION WITH THE MINIMUM DELAY . ON THE THIRD HEAD OF CLAIM
23 THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT THE DECISION PROHIBITING HIM FROM CONTINUING HIS EXPERIMENTS WAS VITIATED AS BEING A MISUSE OF POWERS IN THAT IT WAS INTENDED INDIRECTLY TO PUNISH HIM .
24 THE COMMISSION OBJECTS THAT HIS HEAD OF CLAIM IS INADMISSIBLE AS BEING OUT OF TIME .
25 AS HIS SUPERIOR'S DECISION OF 9 JULY 1971 FORBADE THE APPLICANT TO CONTINUE HIS WORK AND AS HE HAD NOT SUBMITTED A COMPLAINT THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE CHANNELS WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF THAT DATE, THE COMMISSION'S REPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT WAS MERE CONFIRMATION OF THE PREVIOUS DECISION .
26 THE TIME-LIMITS LAID DOWN IN THE REGULATIONS COMMENCE TO RUN ONLY FROM THE MOMENT THE COMPETENT ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY ADOPTS A DEFINITE ATTITUDE .
27 ON 8 NOVEMBER 1971, THE APPLICANT ASKED THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL TO TAKE A DEFINITE DECISION .
28 ON 3 JANUARY 1972, HAVING RECEIVED NO REPLY FROM THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, THE APPLICANT APPLID TO THE COMMISSION FOR A DEFINITE DECISION WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT .
29 THE OBJECTION ON GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
30 THE ORIGINAL DECISION, TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT'S SUPERIOR, TEMPORARILY WITHDRAWING SOME OF HIS RESPONSIBILITIES CANNOT REASONABLY BE SEPARATED FROM THE ACCUSATIONS OF DISHONESTY MADE DURING THE SAME PERIOD AGAINST HIM .
31 THOUGH THERE WAS GOOD REASON AT THAT TIME FOR A DECISION OF THIS KIND WHILE THE INQUIRY BEGUN BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL WAS GOING ON, THIS IS TO SOME EXTENT INVALIDATED BY THE FACT THAT THE INQUIRY WAS NOT COMPLETED .
32 THE FACT THAT, WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY BASING ITS DECISION UPON THE ACCUSATIONS OF DISHONESTY, THE COMMISSION CONFIRMED THE DECISION TO PROHIBIT THE APPLICANT FROM CONTINUING HIS RESEARCH, IS NOT ENOUGH TO REMOVE THE IMPRESSION THAT, BECAUSE IT WAS MAINTAINED, THE DECISION WAS A DISCIPLINARY MEASURE RATHER THAN A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE INQUIRY .
33 THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE COMMISSION TO JUSTIFY PROHIBITING THE APPLICANT FROM CONTINUING HIS WORK, VIZ . THAT THE WORK WAS NOT COVERED BY THE PROGRAMME OF THE JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE, DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY, IN THAT CASE, THE ANNUAL JOB-SHEET REFERRING TO THE APPLICANT'S WORK PROVIDED FOR HIM TO DO THIS WORK DURING THE WHOLE OF 1971, AS HE HAD DONE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR .
34 IN VIEW OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS, THE COMMISSION'S DECISION ON THIS POINT MUST BE ANNULLED . ON THE FOURTH HEAD OF CLAIM
35 THE APPLICANT ASKS THAT THE DEFENDANT BE ORDERED TO PAY HIM THE SUM OF FB 100 000 AS COMPENSATION FOR MATERIAL AND NON-MATERIAL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM THE REFUSAL TO ENSURE WITHDRAWAL IN WRITING OF THE ACCUSATIONS MADE BY HIS SUPERIOR AND FROM THE REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE THE VALIDITY OF THE RESULTS HE HAD OBTAINED FROM HIS EXPERIMENTS .
36 PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE ACTION WHICH MUST BE TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION, THE COURT CANNOT AT THIS TIME TAKE A DECISION ON THIS HEAD OF CLAIM . ON THE FIFTH HEAD OF CLAIM
37 IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR FB 100 000 FOR MATERIAL AND NON-MATERIAL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM THE COMMISSION'S EXPRESS REJECTION OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO BE ALLOWED TO RECOMMENCE HIS WORK AND EXPERIMENTS .
38 IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SUFFERED ANY MATERIAL DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF REFUSAL OF AUTHORITY TO RECOMMENCE HIS WORK AND EXPERIMENTS .
39 ANNULMENT OF THIS REFUSAL IS SUFFICIENT COMPENSATION FOR ALL NON-MATERIAL DAMAGE HE HAS SUSTAINED .