You are on page 1of 1

10.10.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 312/15

orders issued by the delegate resulted in a contract which a breach of the confidentiality of medical information,
had, in terms of achieving its goal Ð namely, development which is an absolute requirement and a matter of public
aid for Somalia Ð plainly become wholly obsolete, being policy.
forcibly performed. Yet the applicant's assets could have
been preserved by an immediate withdrawal from Lastly, the appointing authority has failed to comply with
Somalia. the mandatory time limits laid down in Article 7 of the
rules on disciplinary proceedings: the imposition of a
disciplinary measure three and a half years after the
disciplinary proceedings were commenced represents a
manifest failure to respect any reasonable time limit. In
view of that failure, it is no longer possible for any
Action brought on 20 July 1998 by Andre van Meuter disciplinary measure to be taken and the disciplinary
against the Commission of the European Communities proceedings must be closed.
(Case T-109/98)
(98/C 312/38)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Action brought on 23 July 1998 by Mannesmannröhren-
Communities was brought before the Court of First Werke AG against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 1998 Communities
by Andre van Meuter, residing in Brussels, represented by (Case T-112/98)
Olivier Eben and Jean-Marc Bievez, of the Brussels Bar, (98/C 312/39)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Jean Tonnar, 29 Rue du FosseÂ, Esch-sur- (Language of the case: German)
Alzette.
An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should: Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 23 July 1998
Ð annul the disciplinary measure taken by the appointing by Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG, whose registered office
authority on 10 October 1997, by which the applicant is in Mülheim an der Ruhr (Germany), represented by
was downgraded from grade D 1, step 8, to grade D 2, Bruckhaus Westrick Heller Löber, Rechtsanwälte, Düssel-
step 8, and order that he be reinstated in his former dorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
grade, Chambers of Bonn and Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.

Ð order that the disciplinary proceedings against the The applicant claims that the Court should:
applicant be closed,
Ð annul Commission Decision C(98) 1204 of 15 May
Ð order that no other disciplinary measure be taken 1998 in its entirety,
against the applicant,
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the decision,
Ð order the Commission to pay all of the costs.
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
By the contested decision, the appointing authority
decided to impose on the applicant, with effect from In the course of an investigation to ascertain alleged
1 November 1997, the disciplinary measure of infringements by steel pipe producers of Article 85 of the
downgrading from grade D 1, step 8, to grade D 2, step 8, EC Treaty, the Commission addressed the contested
on the grounds that the applicant had failed to comply decision to the defendant, requiring it to provide the
with his obligation to undergo a medical examination, as information specified in the schedule to the decision
he had undertaken to do, and that he had not lived up to within 30 days or pay a default fine of ECU 1 000 per day
the trust which the appointing authority had placed in in the event of non-compliance.
him.
The applicant complains that the Commission did not
According to the applicant, he cannot be downgraded. allow it a sufficient hearing before issuing the decision.
Despite the excellent staff reports drawn up in relation to There was thus a lack of any proper preliminary
him, and despite his having passed a competition, he has procedure, contrary to Article 11(5) in conjunction with
never been promoted. Downgrading means that the Article 16(2) of Regulation 17. The Commission further
applicant has been penalised twice on the basis of the failed to make available to the applicant in an appropriate
same facts, the first penalty being his non-promotion. manner those documents which it used in issuing a
decision causing lasting prejudice to the applicant, and
Moreover, to impose a disciplinary measure without upon which it based that decision. The principles in the
making the applicant's medical file available to him Solvay (1) and ICI (2) cases were thereby infringed. The
constitutes a violation of the rights of the defence. The applicant also complains of a breach of Article 190 of the
fact that details of the applicant's state of health were EC Treaty in that the formal statement of reasons for the
revealed to the appointing authority represents, a fortiori, decision does not explain why it was necessary.