Home > Awareness, Case law, Data Protection, European Court of Justice, Internet, Privacy, Social Media > Case law: Infringement of the Regulation 45/2001. Part I.

Case law: Infringement of the Regulation 45/2001. Part I.

This month E-Crime Expert is presenting relevant Case law and rulings regarding data protection rights, law applicability and enforcement.

The purpose of this new series is to show actually how the relevant law should be applied in order to properly balance the right to free access of public information, free flow of information and the right to Privacy and Personal Data protection.

The case law will balance both the applicability of Data Protection law in the private and public sector, focusing mostly on the Directive 95/46/EC (private sector) and Regulation 45/2001/EC (rights to data protection of individuals working with/for EU Institutions and bodies).

You could read the first post which is the most relevant to the enforcement of the Directive95/46/EC: Bodyl Lindqvist-part I, part II, part III.

This week will be presented another important Case law, regarding to the Regulation 45/2001/EC: How the privacy and data protection rights of EU officials, contract agents, staff are protected when their private data and information is processed by the EU Institutions and Bodies.

Case F-46/09: Judgment of the Civil service Tribunal (First Chamber)

Document Date: 5 July 2011.

Application date: 05.10.2009

Form: Judicial information


Applicant: V (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová and S. Seyr, agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Data Protection Supervisor (represented by M. V. Pérez Asinari and H. Kranenborg, agents)

Background information:

-On February 27, 2006, the applicant was informed that he passed the selection tests for contract staff, called CAST 25 (for the 25 Member States in the secretarial field). His name has therefore been included in the data base for the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of successful candidates, whose validity was three years.

-In June 2006, two DGs of the Commission expressed their intention to hire the applicant.

-The applicant was called for a medical examination in order to assess his ability to exercise his function in accordance with Article 83 of the CEOS.

-On 26 June 2006, the employment medical examination was held in the premises of the medical service of the Commission in Brussels (Belgium) and the applicant was examined by Dr. K.

-On June 29, 2006, the applicant sent an email to MF, chief medical officer of the Commission complaining about the inappropriate behavior would have had Dr. K. towards him during the medical examination.

-Mr. MF. heard about this complaint in July 2006, and subsequently heard also Dr. K., who has denied the alleged facts against him.

-Despite the absence of evidence regarding the allegations to Dr. K., it was decided to entrust the handling of the applicant’s case to another doctor.

-On September 26, 2006, the medical officer of the Commission issued a medical notice that find the applicant physical unfit.

-On November 9, 2006, Mrs. S, Director in the Directorate General (DG) ‘Personnel and Administration, “informed the applicant that he did not meet the physical fitness required to perform of his duties and informing him also about the possibility within 20 days  to request a review of a medical board, in accordance with Article 33, second paragraph of the statute.

-On November 18, 2006, the applicant requested the review of a medical board.

-The medical board’s opinion as of April 17, 2007, jointly  adopted by its three members, said, after reviewing all the evidence, that the applicant does not have the skills required for the performance of his duties.”

-On May 15, 2007, the Commission officially informed the applicant that he does not physically fit the requirements for the exercise of his duties.

-In the second part of 2008, the Applicant received a job offer as a contract agent function group II from the General Secretariat of the EU Parliament, from February 2 to August 2, 2009.

-For this reason, the medical service of the Parliament sought disclosure (recorded on a note of December 9, 2008) of the applicant’s medical records handled previously by the Commission.

-The Parliament sent a letter to the applicant where it was stated that the offer is valid subject to the conditions of compliance with Article 82 of the CEOS and the positive outcome of the employment medical examination.

-The applicant was also invited to send by fax, within a maximum of two weeks, the necessary documents, especially a certified copy of the original certificates of all previous employers.

-On December 10, 2008, the applicant was scheduled for the employment medical examination (January 7, 2009).

-On December 12, 2008, the applicant, on its own initiative, presented to the Leopold Park Clinic in Brussels to carry out blood tests.

-On December 12, 2008, the medical service of the Parliament received from the Commission a copy of the applicant’s hiring medical record.

-On December 18, 2008, the medical officer of the Parliament, after consulting the information provided by the Commission (on December 12), concluded that the applicant is physically unable to exercise “all functions in all the European Institutions.” This notice is entitled “Results of medical examination of 26 June 2006 made ​​by the Commission in Brussels” where the applicant was found unfit by the medical officer of the Commission.

-On 19 December 2008, the Parliament informed the applicant that he is found medically unfit and withdrew the job offer which was submitted December 10, 2008.

-With the same occasion, the Parliament reminded to the applicant that he had the obligation to report any other recruitment medical examinations conducted in the past with another Institution in order to facilitate the recruitment and allow the transfer of medical records held by the Institution concerned. Secondly, the Parliament stated that it had obtained the transfer of medical records of the applicant held by the Commission, knowing that he had previously worked for the Institutions.

Stay tuned for the next post that will present the The Case analyzes.

Any questions can be submitted to: dan@e-crimeexpert.com

Additional information can be found at: www.e-crimeexppert.com

What do you think about the allegations and prosecution in this Case?

Hit the “subscribe” button in order to be notified when new videos and Articles are posted on this blog.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: