Action brought on 18 November 2005 — ‘M’ v Ombudsman

(Case T-412/05)

(2006/C 48/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s):‘M’ (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

Defendant(s): European Ombudsman

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

By complaint brought before the European Ombudsman, a group of citizens sought a finding that there had been an instance of maladministration within the Commission in its handling of a complaint lodged by those citizens against their national authorities. By decision issued on 18 July 2002, the Ombudsman found that there had been an instance of maladministration and unfair treatment of the complaint on the part of the Commission.

The purpose of the present action, which has been brought by an official of the Commission unit responsible for handling the complaint at issue, is to seek compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of his having been named in person in Decision 1288/99/OV and alleged negligence by the European Ombudsman in his investigation of the complaint and in the conclusions he arrived at in that decision. The applicant contends that after the decision had been published he was named in a press release issued by the European Ombudsman, and this was reproduced in various newspapers and on internet websites, which caused him to suffer damage. In the applicant's view, the damage allegedly suffered is especially serious as he holds an important position and the publication of the European Ombudsman's decision could seriously undermine his professional integrity.

The applicant bases his claim on the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, establishing the non-contractual liability of the European Community, which, according to the applicant, has been incurred in the present case as a result of the allegedly wrongful conduct on the part of the Ombudsman.

In support of his claim, the applicant alleges that, in the present case, the Ombudsman committed a serious breach of his duties by naming individuals — including the applicant — in person in his report in breach of the principles of confidentiality and proportionality insofar as the publication of the applicant's name was not, in the applicant's view, absolutely necessary and could not be justified by any exception to the general rule of confidentiality (1).

Moreover, the applicant claims that conduct of the Ombudsman and his staff constitutes a breach of the audi alterem partem principle, which forms a fundamental element of the right to a fair hearing. He also submits that it is forbidden to make an adverse judgment on a natural or legal person in a report that is to be published after general disclosure and is to be widely circulated.

Lastly, the applicant also claims that, in adopting the decision at issue, the Ombudsman made an incorrect assessment of the facts and based himself on inadequate information.

(1)  In support of his claim, the applicant relies, inter alia, on Case C-315/99 P ISMERI-EUROPA v Court of Auditors [2001] ECR I-5281.