Avis juridique important

61979O0051(02)

European Court reports 1980 Page 01201

Parties

IN CASE 51/79

ROBERT BUTTNER , MICHEL COLIN AND GIANMARIO FASSONE , OFFICIALS OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY VICTOR BIEL , OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE LATTER ' S CHAMBERS , 18A RUE DES GLACIS ,

APPLICANTS ,

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL LEGAL ADVISER , RAYMOND BAEYENS , ACTING AS AGENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF ITS LEGAL ADVISER , MARIO CERVINO , JEAN MONNET BUILDING ,

DEFENDANT ,

Grounds

ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 91 ( 1 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION IN ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN THE COMMUNITIES AND AN OFFICIAL REGARDING THE LEGALITY OF AN ACT ADVERSELY AFFECTING SUCH PERSON .

THIS ACTION DOES NOT CONCERN THE DECISIONS WHICH THE COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE ADOPTED CONSEQUENT UPON THE REPORT DRAWN UP BY PACTEL AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH IT IS IN ANY CASE ESTABLISHED THAT THEY HAD NOT YET BEEN ADOPTED AT THE TIME WHEN THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT . ON THE CONTRARY THE ACTION IS BASED ON THE CONTENT OF THE DISPUTED REPORT WHICH , ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANTS , CONTAINS UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION IN RESPECT OF THEM .

A REPORT OF A STUDY DRAWN UP BY A PRIVATE COMPANY AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION CANNOT HOWEVER CONSTITUTE AN ACT ADVERSELY AFFECTING AN OFFICIAL . THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOT INDICATED THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION OF WHICH THEY WISH TO COMPLAIN . IN THE NOTE TO THE TWO DIRECTORS GENERAL HAVING AUTHORITY IN THE MATTER OF INFORMATICS , WHICH WAS SENT BY THE APPLICANTS TO THE COMMISSION BY WAY OF A COMPLAINT UNDER ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , THEY ASKED FOR CONFIRMATION THAT THE REPORT WOULD NOT BE DISSEMINATED TO PERSONS OUTSIDE THE SERVICE OR USED IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER . THE APPLICATION IS NOT DIRECTED AGAINST ANY DECISION OF THE COMMISSION .

IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COURT CLEARLY HAS NO JURISDICTION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE APPLICATION . CONSEQUENTLY THE COURT MUST APPLY ARTICLE 92 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND DECLARE , OF ITS OWN MOTION , AND WITHOUT OPENING THE ORAL PROCEDURE , THAT THE APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE .

Decision on costs

UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE INSTITUTIONS IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY EMPLOYEES OF THE COMMUNITIES ARE TO BE BORNE BY SUCH INSTITUTIONS .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER ) HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :

1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE .