Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2057
Date: 2014-07-10
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Action for damages
Origin: Greece

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 10 July 2014 1. Court of Auditors — Members’ obligations — Infringement — Judgment of a national court acquitting the person concerned of any charges — Obligation for the Court of Auditors to adopt the acquittal judgment and to publish it — None — Legal classification of the facts by the national court not binding on the institution (Art. 247(7) EC) 2. Actions for damages — Autonomous form of action — Action concerning facts already examined by a national court — Legal classification of the facts not binding on the EU judicature — No breach of the principle of sincere cooperation with regard to the national courts) (Arts 10 EC, 235 EC and 288 EC) 3. Court of Auditors — Members’ obligations — Infringement — Transmission to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of information collected in the course of an investigation — Obligation to inform with respect to a person involved in an investigation — Scope (Court of Auditors Decision 99/50, Art. 4, first para) 1. Since, on one hand, it is exclusively for the national judicial authorities to examine the criminal aspects of the accusations made against a former Member of the Court of Auditors and, on the other hand, for the Court of Justice to examine the disciplinary aspects under Article 247(7) EC, the Court of Auditors itself is not competent, in the context of the institutional structure of the Union, to adopt a decision formally acquitting the person concerned of all charges brought against him, whether in relation to the disciplinary or the criminal aspects, or to publish his acquittal in the press. Furthermore, the Court of Auditors, as the authority responsible for referring the matter to the Court pursuant to Article 247(7) EC, not being bound by the legal characterisation of the facts made in the course of national criminal proceedings, it cannot be required to adopt the acts or the conduct relied on by the applicant, following an aquittal judgment delivered in a Member State. (see paras 39, 40) 2. The action for damages relating to the Community’s non-contractual liability for actions or omissions on the part of its institutions was established as an independent form of judicial remedy, having its own particular place in the system of means of redress and subject to conditions for its use formulated in the light of its specific purpose. Accordingly, although findings made in criminal proceedings relating to facts which are the same as those investigated in the course of a procedure based on Article 235 EC may be taken into account by the Community Court hearing the case, the latter is not bound by the legal characterisation of the facts made by the criminal court; rather, it is for the Community Court, exercising its discretion to the full, to undertake an independent examination of those facts in order to determine whether the conditions to be satisfied in order for the Community to incur non-contractual liability have been met. Therefore, the Community Court cannot be criticised for having acted in breach of the principle of sincere cooperation, laid down in Article 10 EC, by making an assessment of certain facts which diverges from the findings made by the national court. (see paras 54-56) 3. Without in any way specifying the type of investigation referred to, the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 4 of Decision 99/50 of the Court of Auditors concerning the terms and conditions for internal investigations in relation to the prevention of fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity detrimental to the financial interests of the Communities simply states that, where the possible implication of a Member, official or servant of the Court of Auditors emerges, the person concerned must be informed ‘rapidly’, so long as that would not be harmful to the investigation. It follows that that provision does not lay down an obligation to inform immediately, as soon as the investigation begins, and it tempers the obligation by requiring that the efficiency of the investigation must not be impaired. (see paras 87, 88)