Language of document : ECLI:EU:F:2012:30

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

8 March 2012 (*)

(Civil service – Removal from the register – Withdrawal by the applicant – Liability for costs – Order requiring the defendant to pay the costs)

In Case F‑49/11,

ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof,

BE, a former official of the European Commission, residing in Espoo (Finland), represented by B. Rohde-Liebenau, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Commission, represented by J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents,

defendant,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

makes the following

Order

1        By application lodged at the Registry of the Tribunal on 18 April 2011, BE made various claims relating, in essence, to the reopening of the file concerning his accident at work.

2        By letter lodged at the Registry on 9 November 2011, the applicant gave written notice that he wished to discontinue the proceedings.

3        In the same letter the applicant also asked the Tribunal to order the European Commission to pay the costs on a number of grounds.

4        First, the Commission continues to harass him and has lost track of his situation, since, although it claims that he never returned to work following his accident, he has been asked to perform certain assignments relating to aerospace engineering and security.

5        Second, the Commission refused to send the requested medical file to the Finnish health authorities and is trying to influence the work of the Medical Committee.

6        Third, when in 2000 he pointed out the problems which were the root cause of the Euro crisis, the Commission did not protect him from his hierarchical superior who physically attacked him.

7        Fourth, the Medical Committee has used non-medical terms such as ‘hysteria’, ‘latent personality disorder’ and ‘neurotic personality disorder’.

8        Fifth, the Commission failed to react to several complaints of ill-treatment lodged by him and to an expert testimony on the physical and psychological violence which he has suffered.

9        Sixth, he was refused access to his personnel file.

10      By letter lodged at the Registry on 28 November 2011, the Commission stated that it has no objections to the applicant’s withdrawal and asked for the applicant to be ordered to pay all the costs.

 Withdrawal

11      Under Article 74 of the Rules of Procedure, if the applicant informs the Tribunal, in writing or at the hearing, that he wishes to discontinue the proceedings, the President is to order the case to be removed from the register and give a decision as to costs in accordance with Article 89(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

12      Consequently, the present case must be removed from the register of the Tribunal.

 Costs

13      Under Article 89(5) of the Rules of Procedure, a party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the observations of the other party on the discontinuance. However, upon application by the party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings, the costs are to be borne by the other party if this appears justified by the conduct of that party.

14      In the present case, in its observations on the withdrawal, the Commission asks that the applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

15      Moreover, the arguments presented by the applicant to justify his not being ordered to pay the costs, outlined in paragraphs 4 to 9 of the present order, relate to the merits of the claims made in the application and not to the possibility that by its behaviour the Commission distorted the applicant’s view of the appropriateness of bringing proceedings or artificially increased the applicant’s legal fees. The applicant cannot, without contradicting himself, withdraw his claims while requiring that they none the less be examined in order to determine whether they are of sufficient merit to justify the Commission being ordered to bear the costs. Furthermore, it is not apparent from the file that the Commission’s attitude justifies its being ordered to pay the costs.

16      In those circumstances, the applicant must be ordered to pay his own costs and those of the Commission.

On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE TRIBUNAL

hereby orders:

1.      Case F‑49/11 BE v Commission is removed from the register of the Tribunal.

2.      BE shall pay his own costs and those of the Commission.

Luxembourg, 8 March 2012.

W. Hakenberg

 

      M.I. Rofes i Pujol

Registrar

 

      President


* Language of the case: English.