CELEX: 62001TJ0258
Officials
Disciplinary measures
Relegation in step
Articles 11 and 14 of the Staff Regulations
Contract for the security of the Commission's buildings

1.
Officials – Actions – Action against the decision rejecting a complaint – Admissibility
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
2.
Officials – Rights and obligations – Proposal from a category B official to engage staff assigned to administrative tasks
under a buildings security contract – Widespread practice instigated by the hierarchy and not inherently fraudulent – Breach
of obligations under the Staff Regulations – None
(Staff Regulations, Art. 11)
1.     An official’s action formally directed against the express or implied rejection of a prior administrative complaint lodged
under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations has the effect of bringing before the Court the act adversely affecting the official
against which the complaint was submitted.
(see para. 30)
See: 293/87
Vainker
v
Parliament
[1989] ECR 23, para. 8; T-33/91
Williams
v
Court of Auditors
[1992] ECR II-2499, para. 23; T-36/94
Capitanio
v
Commission
[1996] ECR-SC I-A-449 and II-1279, para. 33
2.     It is unreasonable to accuse an official in category B, whose duties, according to Article 5(1) of the Staff Regulations,
are executive duties, and not administrative duties which correspond to those assigned to officials in category A, of failing
to comply with his obligations under the Staff Regulations merely by virtue of having proposed to engage persons to carry
out administrative tasks within the institution, in connection with the execution of a buildings security contract, when that
practice had been organised by the various Commission departments, was widespread, had been instigated by the hierarchy of
the institution and, although irregular, was not inherently fraudulent.
(see para. 47)