European Union Commission compensates an employee for breach of rights (EU Civil Service Tribunal)

9 June 2010, Case F-56/09. The Civil Service Tribunal ordered the European Commission to pay its employee, the applicant in the present case, 5000 Euro as compensation for failure to respect his possessions, residence and private life.

Applicant was a Commission official, posted in Angola since June 2000. He was provided with acccommodation, that according to the agreement was to be last for as long as his assignment in Angola lasted. Another condition was that Commission representatives had the right to inspect the premises as often as considered necessary to ensure that the official was respecting the conditions of the lease; however such inspections required the consent of the official obtained at least 48 hours prior to the inspection.
 
In January 2002 applicant fell ill and returned home (to Italy). The Commission sought to reassign him in Brussels, but he objected to this. In due course the Commission terminated the lease and put all the applicant’s possessions, including his car, into safe storage, after drawing up an inventory. Applicant claimed that this unilateral action on the Commission’s part amounted to a lack of respect for his residence, a breach of his private life and an appropriation of his private property; for this he requested compensation, claiming ‘damages of a material, moral, psychological and existential’ nature.
 
The Tribunal cited case law which established that respect for one’s private residence was a general principle of Community law founded on the law of the Member States. This right was to be defended from arbitrary and disproportionate actions.  The Tribunal also referred to article 6 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU), through which article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights gained applicability (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence). It was also established in case law of the European Court of Human Rights that a premises occupied by an official was to be regarded as his residence for the purposes of article 8 of the Convention, even after the date when he was expected to move out and return the premises (para. 53).

In this case, the Tribunal held that the premises were his residence, and he was entitled to respect for this. The fact that he fell ill and had to move back to Italy did not change this, the more so because he indicated his intention to return, for instance by opposing his employer’s attempts to re-assign him in Brussels (para. 55).
 
The Tribunal acknowledged that the Commission based its decision to act the way it did, on legitimate interests and in the interest of the Service (para. 62). This however did not entitle the Commission to act the way it did, unilaterally, without respecting any formalities, without even allowing the applicant opportunity to remove his personal possessions (para. 63). This amounted to a lack of respect for the applicant’s possessions, residence and private life. Such a lack of respect was illegal and led to liability on the Commission’s part. This illegal act was the direct cause of moral damages on the applicant’s part (paras 64-65). Once all the elements of liability under EU law were satisfied (listed in para. 50), the Tribunal awarded compensation.

To read the judgement click here