JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

20 September 2001

Case T-344/99

Lucía Recalde Langarica

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1 )(a) of the Staff Regulations — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations — Right to be heard’

Full text in Spanish   II-833

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decision of 26 February 1999 withdrawing the applicant's expatriation allowance and withholding from her remuneration the amounts paid in that respect.

Held:

the Commission's decision of 26 February 1999 is annulled. The claim that the Court should make any other appropriate order is dismissed as inadmissible requiring the Commission to fulfil its obligations under Article 233 EC. The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Summary

Officials — Decision affecting the administrative status of an official — Taking into account of matters not included in his personal file — Not permissible — Decisive influence — Annulment — Conditions

(Staff Regulations, Art. 26)

Observance of the right to be heard is, in all proceedings initiated against a person which are liable to culminate in a decision adversely affecting that person, a fundamental principle of Community law. That principle requires that the addressees of decisions which significantly affect their interests should be placed in a position in which they may effectively make known their views.

In the context of the European Civil Service, the principle of observance of the right to be heard is given expression, in particular, in Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, the purpose of which is to ensure that decisions taken by the appointing authority affecting the administrative status and career of the official concerned are not based on matters concerning his conduct which are not included in his personal file and have not been communicated to him.

Infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations entails the annulment of a measure only if it is established that the documents in question could have had a decisive influence on the contested decision. The mere fact that documents were not placed on an official's personal file is not enough to justify annulment of a decision adversely affecting him if they were in fact brought to his knowledge.

(see paras 57-60)

See: 88/71 Brasseur v Parliament [1972] ECR 499, para. 11; 233/85 Bonino v Commission [1987] ECR 739, para. 11; C-32/95 P Commission v Lisrestal and Others [1996] ECR I-5373, para. 21; C-294/95 P Ojha v Commission [1996] ECR I-5863, paras 57, 67 and 68