Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 720/2006/DK against the European Parliament

Strasbourg, 2 July 2008

Dear Mr X,

On 2 March 2006, acting on behalf of Mr P., you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Parliament, concerning the allegedly improper way in which Mr P. was treated by that institution.

On 31 March 2006, I forwarded the complaint to the President of Parliament. Parliament sent its opinion on 6 June 2006. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 7 June 2006.

On 22 November 2006, I sent a letter of further inquiries to Parliament and informed you in a letter of the same day. Parliament sent its additional opinion on 30 January 2007. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make additional observations, which you sent on 2 May 2007.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made. Please accept my apology for the delay in closing this case.

THE COMPLAINT

Background

Mr P. was an official of the European Parliament between 16 November 1989 and 1 June 1999. By e-mail of 31 May 2002, Mr M., acting on behalf of Mr P., submitted a request for the allocation of a resettlement allowance, on the grounds that Mr P. had established his new home in the United Kingdom and had ceased to live at his former address in Luxembourg. In its decision of 3 June 2002, Parliament informed Mr P. that his application for a resettlement allowance had been rejected.

On 4 September 2002, Mr P. submitted a formal complaint (within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities) concerning the rejection by Parliament of his request for the resettlement allowance. In its reply of 19 November 2002, Parliament explained that his application for the resettlement allowance had been rejected because (i) he was under legal guardianship and his guardian had not been informed about his alleged installation in the United Kingdom, and therefore his application was not valid; (ii) the rent contract that he had presented to Parliament showed that the payment of rent was to start two days after the deadline for establishing a new residence, that is, 31 May 2002, had expired; and (iii) the transport tickets, as presented with his application, did not show that he had effectively changed his place of residence. Parliament nevertheless invited Mr P. to provide all necessary documents that could effectively prove that he had indeed ceased to live at his Luxembourg home and had established, before 31 May 2002, a new address in the United Kingdom.

On 19 and 20 October 2002, acting on behalf of Mr P., Mr D. (hereafter "the complainant") wrote two letters to the Secretary-General of Parliament. The complainant alleged that Mr K., a Parliament official, had lied or made false statements concerning Mr P. on several occasions. These incidents allegedly happened when Mr P. tried to present documents to Mr K. in order to prove that he had indeed changed his place of residence from Luxembourg to the United Kingdom. The complainant therefore requested that disciplinary action be taken against Mr K. for his allegedly improper behaviour.

On 25 October 2002, the complainant wrote a letter to Mr Cox, then President of the European Parliament, concerning the same issue.

In its reply of 21 November 2002, the Secretary-General informed the complainant that Mr P.'s earlier aggressive behaviour vis-à-vis other officials was contrary to the obligations binding upon officials and retired officials and that therefore the restrictions, which had already been imposed, concerning Mr P.'s access to Parliament buildings would not be lifted.

On 29 November 2002, the complainant sent a further letter to the Secretary-General, in reply to its letter of 21 November 2002, and stated that Mr P. had never attacked Mr K. physically and therefore the accusation of his being aggressive was false.

On 28 February 2003, Mr P. initiated proceedings before the Court of First Instance against Parliament's decision not to grant him the resettlement allowance. However, in its judgement of 25 May 2004, the Court rejected the action since the evidence presented by Mr P. was insufficient to prove that he had effectively moved his place of residence to the United Kingdom.

On 7 December 2005, the complainant sent a letter to the Secretary-General(1), in which he stated that Parliament had failed to honour its obligations and to provide aid to Mr P., a retired official in distress. He repeated his request that disciplinary action be taken against Mr K. and the other officials involved in the matter.

On 27 December 2005, the complainant sent another letter to the Secretary-General, in which he repeated his allegations and claims as put forward in his previous letters to him. The complainant alleged that Mr K. had wrongly refused to keep an appointment with Mr P., which was scheduled in order to allow Mr P. to present documents to prove that he had established his home in the United Kingdom. The complainant further alleged that Mr K. had wrongfully accused Mr P. of adopting an aggressive attitude and using physical violence towards him. The complainant reiterated his request that disciplinary action be taken against Mr K. and the other officials involved in the matter.

On 2 March 2006, the complainant submitted the present complaint to the Ombudsman arguing that the reasonable deadline for Parliament to reply to his letter of 27 December 2005 had expired. He therefore requested that the Ombudsman start investigating the matter(2).

In his complaint, the complainant alleged that:

1. the European Parliament has wrongly refused to keep an appointment with Mr P. and has thus prevented him from presenting the documents that could prove that he had established a new home in the United Kingdom;
2. Mr P. has been wrongfully accused of an aggressive attitude and physical violence towards a European Parliament official;
3. the European Parliament has failed to reply to his letter of 27 December 2005 regarding the matter.

The complainant claimed that:

1. Mr P. should be rehabilitated completely;
2. Mr P. should receive an apology;
3. a payment of EUR 7 110, together with interest, should be made to Mr P. by the European Parliament.

THE INQUIRY

Parliament's opinion

In its opinion, Parliament made, in summary, the following comments:

Parliament first recalled that Mr P. was a retired official. He was granted an invalidity allowance with effect from 1 June 1999 and was under legal guardianship. On 1 August 2002, Parliament's Head of the Personnel Division, which included the Individual Entitlements Service, sent a note to the Director of Security in the Directorate-General ("DG") for the Presidency describing as follows the incident that was at the origin of the repeated complaints by the complainant:

On 31 July 2002, Mr P. went to the office of Mr K., then Head of the Individual Entitlements Service, in order to enquire about the progress of his file concerning his resettlement in the United Kingdom. The complainant, who accompanied Mr P., remained outside Mr K.'s office, while Mr P. stayed in Mr K.'s office alone with him and without any witnesses for half an hour. Mr K. stated that he had felt threatened by the aggressive behaviour of Mr P., who abused him by using particularly coarse language and made threatening gestures with a bag that he had on his lap, the contents of which were unknown to Mr K. When Mr P. left his office, Mr K. notified the security service immediately and Mr P. was consequently refused access to the building upon the request of the Head of the Personnel Division. Following this incident in his office, Mr K. requested psychological assistance at the Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg ("CHL"). The report drawn up by a doctor at the CHL is in the personal medical file of Mr K.

On 4 September 2002, Mr P. filed a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the 3 June 2002 decision by the Head of the Personnel Division, rejecting his request for payment of the resettlement allowance and extension of the statutory time-limit for his moving to the United Kingdom. This complaint was rejected by letter of 19 November 2002.

On 28 February 2003, Mr P. initiated proceedings before the Court of First Instance, which mainly concerned a request to Parliament to revoke its above decision of 3 June 2002. In its judgement of 25 May 2004, the Court rejected the case and ordered Mr P. to pay his own costs.

In October 2005, Mr K., Ms K., who was a former assistant in the Individual Entitlements Unit, and Ms N., the then Head of the Personnel Division received letters sent by the complainant to their home addresses. On 8 November 2005, the Head of the Personnel Division wrote to the Secretary-General to complain about these letters.

At the request of the relevant Director in DG Personnel, her assistant, Ms F., met the complainant on 23 January 2006. The complainant told Ms F. that, on 15 January 2006, he had submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman and was awaiting a reply with respect to the admissibility of his complaint.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant maintained his complaint and made, in summary, the following observations:

Although Mr P. is not without flaws, he is certainly not aggressive, contrary to the accusations made by Mr K., by the Head of the Personnel Division or by the Secretary-General of Parliament.

The fact that Mr K. believed that he needed psychological assistance at the Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg following the incident with Mr P. proved that he was and continues to be unable to understand and to appreciate his real role in the situation in question. In fact, the complainant was standing only one meter from Mr K.'s open office door and he did not hear either particularly coarse language, threats or insults.

With regard to the letters sent to Mr K., to Ms K., and to Ms M., the then Head of the Personnel Division at their home addresses, the complainant wondered whether there was any provision in the Staff Regulations that prohibited such a course of action.

The complainant pointed out that the Secretary-General wrote to him, in one of his letters(3), that there were several witnesses to the incident between Mr P. and Mr K. who have confirmed the accusations against Mr P. However, in its opinion, Parliament stated that there were no witnesses.

Further inquiries

After careful consideration of Parliament's opinion and the complainant's observations on it, it appeared that further inquiries were necessary, since Parliament had failed to provide an opinion on the complainant's first and third allegations and his three claims. Furthermore, in his observations, the complainant submitted two new allegations, namely, (i) Parliament's security staff exceeded its powers by not allowing Mr P. to make photocopies of the documents contained in his personal file; and (ii) two documents were missing from Mr P.'s personal file.

The Ombudsman's request for further information from Parliament

On 27 November 2006, the Ombudsman wrote to Parliament asking it to provide an opinion on the complainant's first and third allegations and his three claims. The Ombudsman further asked Parliament to provide a supplementary opinion on the complainant's new allegations.

Parliament's reply

In its reply of 30 January 2007, Parliament made, in summary, the following comments:

With regard to the complainant's first allegation, namely, that Parliament refused to keep an appointment with Mr P. and thus prevented him from presenting the documents that could prove that he had established a new home in the United Kingdom, Parliament pointed out the following. It had no knowledge that an appointment had been scheduled with Mr P., nevertheless, he had the possibility to provide Parliament's competent services, at any time, with the documents proving his resettlement in the United Kingdom. In fact, Parliament has always been willing to receive the relevant documentary evidence in this regard. This co-operative attitude had been shown by the competent services from the beginning of the procedure relating to Mr P.'s resettlement allowance, that is, from his telephone call of 7 March 2002 requesting information until the public hearing on 12 March 2004 before the Court of First Instance. Even during this hearing, the officials of Parliament expressed Parliament's willingness to take into account, with retroactive effect, potential documentary evidence presented after the hearing. On the other hand, it should also be pointed out that Mr P.'s lawyer made no reference to the allegedly scheduled appointment either during the hearing before the Court, or on any other occasion. Finally, Parliament also pointed out that, in his letter of 19 November 2002 rejecting Mr P.'s Article 90 complaint, the Secretary-General of Parliament, Mr Priestly, invited him to supply all documentary evidence in his possession proving that he has settled in the United Kingdom. Parliament added that, notwithstanding the Secretary-General's invitation, Parliament has still not received any such evidence.

With regard to the complainant's third allegation, namely, that Parliament has failed to reply to his letter of 27 December 2005, Parliament pointed out that, as a reaction to that letter, and a t the request of the Director of DG Personnel, Ms P., her assistant, Ms F., met the complainant, on 23 January 2006, in demonstration of the institution's solicitous approach. The complainant then informed Ms P. that he submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman on 15 January 2006.

With regard to the complainant's claims, namely, that Mr P. should be rehabilitated, should receive an apology, and that a payment of EUR 7 110 should be made to him, Parliament considered that, in view of the above and of the decision of 25 May 2004 of the Court of First Instance, these were not grounded.

With regard to the complainant's first new allegation, namely, that Parliament's security staff exceeded its powers by not allowing Mr P. to make photocopies of the documents contained in his personal file, Parliament pointed out that, by letter of 28 July 2006(4), the Director-General of DG Personnel, Mr Wilson, had already addressed the issue. On the basis of the information obtained from the Security Unit of DG Presidency, the security services did not, in any way, interrupt Mr P. while photocopied his administrative documents, or prevent him from doing so. Mr P. photocopied those documents in the constant presence of the competent official, Mr H.

With regard to the complainant's second new allegation, namely, that two documents were missing from Mr P.'s personal file, Parliament pointed out the following. The incident between Mr P. and Mr K. on 31 July 2002 led to (i) a note of 1 August 2002 from the then Head of the Personnel Division , Ms N. to the Director of the former DG I - Direction A, Ms R., and (ii) a note of 3 September 2002 from the then Head of the Individual Entitlements Service, Mr K., to the Secretary-General, Mr Priestly. These two notes, together with a daily report ("rapport journalier") of the Security Services concerning the incident of 31 July 2002, have never been part of Mr P.'s personal file since they are internal notes and not decisions taken by the Appointing Authority, which are normally inserted into the personal file of the concerned person.

The complainant's additional observations

In his observations of 28 April 2007 on Parliament's additional opinion, the complainant maintained his complaint.

THE DECISION(5)

1 Parliament's alleged failure to keep an appointment with Mr P., thereby preventing him from presenting certain documents

1.1 In his complaint, the complainant alleged that the European Parliament wrongly refused to keep an appointment with Mr P. and thus prevented him from presenting documents that could prove that he had established a new home in the United Kingdom.

1.2 In its additional opinion, Parliament pointed out that it had no knowledge of an appointment being scheduled with Mr P. However, Parliament has always shown its co-operative attitude to Mr P. through its willingness to receive from him the relevant documentary evidence that would prove that he has settled in the United Kingdom. In fact, in his letter of 19 November 2002, rejecting Mr P.'s Article 90 complaint, the Secretary-General of Parliament again invited him to do so. Moreover, during the public hearing on 12 March 2004 before the Court of First Instance Parliament's officials expressed Parliament's willingness to take into account, with retroactive force, potential documentary evidence presented by Mr P. after the hearing. On the other, Parliament remarked that Mr P.'s lawyer did not make any reference to the allegedly scheduled appointment during the hearing before the Court, nor has he done so on any other occasion. Furthermore, to date, Parliament has still not received any such documentary evidence.

1.3 The Ombudsman first notes that the complainant has not submitted any specific evidence showing that an appointment between Mr P. and Parliament's official, Mr K., had been scheduled for a specific date and not respected by Mr K. In view of Parliament's submission that it had no knowledge of such an appointment, and of the absence of relevant evidence supporting the complainant's submission, the Ombudsman considers that the first aspect of the complainant's allegation has not been substantiated.

1.4 As to the second aspect of the complainant's allegation, it must be remarked that the submission to Parliament of documents demonstrating the establishment of a new place of residence can obviously be made by means other than an appointment with a competent official (for example, by post). In this regard, the Ombudsman takes note of Parliament's submission that it has always been willing to receive these documents from Mr P., and that it reiterated this willingness in the context of the Court's hearing of the relevant case. The complainant does not appear to have contested Parliament's above position. In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the second aspect of the complainant's allegation has not been substantiated.

1.5 The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration corresponding to the complainant's first allegation.

2 The allegation that Mr P. has been wrongfully accused of adopting an aggressive attitude and using physical violence towards a Parliament official

2.1 In his complaint, the complainant alleged that Mr P. has been wrongfully accused of adopting an aggressive attitude and using physical violence towards a Parliament official, namely, Mr K.

2.2 In its opinion, Parliament explained that, on 31 July 2002, Mr P., in the company of the complainant, went to the office of Mr K., then Head of the Individual Entitlements Service, to inquire about the progress of his file concerning his resettlement in the United Kingdom. The complainant remained outside Mr K.'s office, while Mr P. was alone with him, without any witnesses, for half an hour. Following Mr P.'s departure from his office, Mr K. notified the security service immediately because he had felt threatened by Mr P.'s behaviour. According to Mr K., Mr P. had allegedly abused him by using particularly coarse language and had made threatening gestures. Mr P. was consequently refused access to the building upon the request of the Head of the Personnel Division. Following this incident in his office, Mr K. had to request psychological assistance at the Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg. In his observations, the complainant was not satisfied with the above explanations and insisted on his allegation.

2.3 The Ombudsman, first, notes that Mr K. does not appear to have accused Mr P. of physical violence against him; he has rather referred to certain gestures he perceived as threatening. Second, the Ombudsman also notes that Parliament does not seem to have made such an accusation either. Hence, the allegation is, in relevant part, unfounded.

2.4 As regards the part of the allegation that Mr P. had adopted an aggressive attitude during his meeting with Mr K., the Ombudsman recalls that this meeting was not attended by any other persons who could provide reliable information as to what happened. It is, thus, a case of Mr P.'s word against that of Mr K. He also notes that at the time of this meeting, Mr P. was, apparently, under legal guardianship. Taking the above into account, the Ombudsman considers that the allegation has not been substantiated, in relevant part.

2.5 The Ombudsman, thus, finds no maladministration corresponding to the second allegation.

3 Allegation that Parliament has failed to reply to the complainant's letter of 27 December 2005

3.1 The complainant alleged that Parliament has failed to reply to his letter of 27 December 2005.

3.2 In its opinion, Parliament explained that, as a reaction to the complainant's letter and at the request of the Director of the Directorate-General for Personnel, Ms P., on 23 January 2006, her assistant, Ms F., met the complainant in demonstration of Parliament's solicitous approach. The complainant has not disputed the factual accuracy of this statement.

3.3 Since Parliament appears to have dealt with the complainant's letter of 27 December 2005 in the context of the above meeting, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the above aspect of the case.

4 Allegation that Parliament's security staff exceeded its powers by not allowing Mr P. to make photocopies of the documents contained in his personal file

4.1 In his observations on Parliament's opinion, the complainant alleged that Parliament's security staff exceeded its powers by not allowing Mr P. to make photocopies of the documents contained in his personal file.

4.2 In its additional opinion, Parliament explained that the security services did not, in any way, prevent Mr P. from making photocopies of his administrative documents. On the contrary, they allowed him, in the constant presence of the competent official, Mr H., to do so and then he was simply escorted to the exit.

4.3 The Ombudsman notes that Parliament's explanation, that its security services did not interrupt Mr P. when making photocopies of certain documents, is in accordance with its statement made in its letter of 28 July 2006 to the complainant. The Ombudsman notes that Parliament wrote:

"The security services did not, at any point, interrupt Mr P., in any way, when he was making photocopies of his administrative documents, nor did it otherwise prevent him from making those photocopies. In fact, after having consulted the relevant services, it appears that, on the basis of an appointment scheduled, on 22 May 2006 at 15:30, Mr P. first arrived at the reception of the KAD building and then to the office of Mr A., an official at the Unit of Management of Personnel and Careers, to consult his personal file. At 15:40, Mr A. informed the reception that Mr P., who is not authorised to access or to move within Parliament's buildings without being accompanied, had disappeared from her office while she had been gone to get his personal file. At 16:30, the security services found Mr P. on the third floor of the building making photocopies, in the presence of Mr H., an official of the Pension Services. It has to be pointed out that Mr P. had always been accompanied by Mr H., while making the photocopies. Mr P. was then escorted to the reception by a security agent. He left the building at 16:50."(6)

4.4 The Ombudsman also notes that the complainant has not presented any specific arguments or documentary evidence duly substantiating the factual basis of his allegation. In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration corresponding to the fourth allegation.

5 Allegation that certain documents were missing from Mr P.'s personal file

5.1 In his observations, the complainant alleged that certain defamatory documents were missing from Mr P.'s personal file. The complainant did not identify the documents in question.

5.2 In the relevant part of its additional opinion, Parliament made reference to the following documents: (i) a note of 1 August 2002 from the then Head of the Personnel Division, Ms N. to the Director of the former DG I - Direction A, Ms R., and (ii) a note of 3 September 2002 from the then Head of the Individual Entitlements Service, Mr K., to the Secretary-General, Mr Priestly. Moreover, Parliament made the following comments. The above documents relate to the incident that happened between Mr P. and Mr K. in the latter's office on 31 July 2002. These two notes, together with a daily report ("rapport journalier") of the Security Services concerning the incident of 31 July 2002, never became part of Mr P.'s personal file since they are internal notes and not decisions taken by the Appointing Authority which are normally inserted into the personal file of the concerned person. In his observations on Parliament's additional opinion, the complainant summarised Parliament's last statement, without making any specific comments on this part of the institution's additional opinion.

5.3 The Ombudsman, first, recalls that, according to Article 26 of the Staff Regulations in force, "the personal file of an official shall contain (...) all documents concerning his administrative status and all reports relating to his ability, efficiency and conduct." Hence, contrary to what Parliament appears to have suggested, an official's personal file should include not only decisions taken by the Appointing Authority about the official but also other documents, which constitute "reports relating", inter alia, to the official's conduct. This is confirmed by the case-law of the Community Courts concerning the identical provision of Article 26 of the former Staff Regulations. According to this case-law, any document which might affect the administrative status of the official must be placed in his personal file(7). The phrase "administrative status" does not refer only to the main events in the career of the official but also to other events relating to the rights he/she enjoys as an official(8).

The above documents mentioned by Parliament appear to relate to Mr P.'s conduct in the context of his meeting with Mr K. In view of the subject-matter of these documents (which have not been communicated to the Ombudsman in the context of the present inquiry), it cannot be excluded that they might affect (or have affected) Mr P.'s administrative status, in particular his right to have access to Parliament's premises as a (retired) official.

5.4 In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the explanations given by Parliament about why the above documents were not included in Mr P.'s personal file are not satisfactory. However, it must also be noted that, apparently, Mr P. has not exhausted the possibilities of internal requests and complaints with respect to this matter, as required by Article 2(8) of the Ombudsman's Statute. For this reason, the Ombudsman does not consider it justified to inquire further into the matter. However, a relevant further remark will be made below.

6 The complainant's claims

6.1 The complainant claimed that Parliament should rehabilitate Mr P. completely, apologise to him, and pay him the sum of EUR 7 110, together with interest.

6.2 In its opinion, Parliament stated that, in view of the above and of the decision of the Court of First Instance in the relevant case, it considered that the complainant's claims were not founded.

6.3 The Ombudsman considers that, in view of his conclusions in points 1.5, 2.5, 3.3 and 4.4 above, there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the complainant's related claims.

7 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration corresponding to the complainant's first, second, third and fourth allegations. Moreover, he does not consider it justified further to inquire into the complainant's fifth allegation. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of Parliament will also be informed of this decision.

FURTHER REMARK

According to Article 26 of the Staff Regulations in force, "[t]he personal file of an official shall contain (...) all documents concerning his administrative status and all reports relating to his ability, efficiency and conduct." In its additional opinion on the present complaint, Parliament made, in this regard, a distinction between internal notes and decisions taken by the Appointing Authority, suggesting that the former do not become part of an official's personal file, while the latter normally do. Parliament is invited to reconsider the propriety of this distinction and resulting approach, in view the Ombudsman's remarks in point 5.3 above.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) The Ombudsman notes that there is no information available about what happened between 2002 and 2005 concerning this matter.

(2) It should be pointed out that some of the complainant's original allegations and claims were directed against an official of Parliament. However, since the Ombudsman is unable to deal with complainants against individual officials as such, he considered the complaint to be directed against Parliament.

(3) The Ombudsman notes that the complainant refers to the Secretary-General's letter of 21 November 2002.

(4) A copy of which Parliament attached to its additional opinion.

(5) As a preliminary point, the Ombudsman notes the following: the present complaint has been submitted on behalf of Mr P. On the basis of certain information contained in the documentation forming part of the file of the case, it appears that Mr P. was, at least during a period of time in the past, under legal guardianship. Such a legal status, if still existing at the time of the submission of the present complaint, and depending on its particulars, could have a bearing on the admissible exercise of the right to complain to the Ombudsman. Taking into account that Parliament has not raised such an issue in its opinions, the Ombudsman does not consider it justified to make special inquiries about this matter.

(6) "Á aucun moment, les services de sécurité n'ont interrompu ou empêché de quelque façon que ce soit M. P. de faire des copies de documents administratifs le concernant. En effet, renseignements pris auprès des services compétents, il s'avère que, le 22 mai 2006 à 15h30, M. P., suite au rendez-vous pris, s'est présenté d'abord à la réception du bâtiment KAD et ensuite au bureau de M. [A.], fonctionnaire auprès de l'Unité de la Gestion du personnel et des carrières, [(...)], afin de consulter son dossier personnel. A 15h40, M. [A.] prévient la réception que M. P. - qui n'est pas autorisé à accéder ou à se déplacer dans les bâtiments du Parlement sans être accompagné - a disparu de son bureau pendent qu'il s'est absenté pour aller chercher le dossier personnel de l'intéressé. A 16h30, les agents de sécurité localisent M. P. au troisième étage du bâtiment, occupé à copier des documents, en compagnie de M. [H.], fonctionnaire du service des pensions. Il y a lieu de préciser que M. P. pendant son activité de prise de copies a toujours été accompagné par M. [H.]. Leur travail terminé, M. P. est raccompagné par un gardien à la réception. Il quitte le bâtiment à 16h50." (Translation from the French original by the Ombudsman's services.)

(7) See Case 140/86 Strack v Commission [1987] ECR I-3939, paragraph 8; Case T-77/99 Ojha v Commission [2001] ECR SC-I-A-61 and II-293, paragraph 57.

(8) Cf. Case T-77/99 Ojha v Commission, cited above, paragraph 58.