Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:302
Date: 2002-12-05
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Individual decisions;Form of disciplinary measure;Procedure
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY — CASE T-277/01 
Summary 
1. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Disciplinary proceedings - Appointing 
authority's decision imposing a disciplinary measure without first hearing the official 
concerned - Absence of prior hearing attributable to the official concerned -
Whether lawful 
(Staff Regulations, Annex IX, Art. 7, third para.) 
2. Officials - Decision adversely affecting an official — Disciplinary measure -
Obligation to state grounds — Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 25) 
3. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Measure - Removal from post -
Appointing authority's discretion - Review by the Court - Scope - Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 86 to 89) 
4. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Criminal conviction of the official 
concerned by a national court - Appointing authority's right to act on the basis of 
findings of fact made in the criminal court's final verdict 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 88, fifth para.) 
5. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Measure - Appointing authority's 
discretion — Appraisal of all the facts and circumstances peculiar to each individual 
case 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 86 and 89) 
I-A - 254 
STEVENS v COMMISSION 
1. The fact that, contrary to the third paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the 
Staff Regulations, the official concerned was not heard by the appointing authority 
before it adopted its decision does not result in annulment of the decision imposing 
a disciplinary measure on him if that non-compliance was attributable to the official 
concerned himself. The appointing authority is not required to postpone that hearing 
indefinitely until the official concerned is able to attend. On the contrary, in the 
interests both of the official and of the administration, the decision terminating the 
disciplinary proceedings must not be delayed without justification. That is the 
purpose of the time-limit of one month laid down in the third paragraph of Article 7 
of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, which constitutes a 'rule of sound 
administration'. 
(see para. 41) 
See: 13/69 Van Eick v Commission [1970] ECR 3, para. 4; C-270/99 P Z v Parliament 
120011 ECR 1-9197, para. 21; T-12/94 Daffix v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-453 and 
II-1197, paras 130 and 131; T-121/99 Irving v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-85 and 
II-357, para. 53 
2. The statement of the grounds for a decision adversely affecting a person must 
provide the person concerned with sufficient information to determine whether the 
decision is well founded and must allow the Community Court to review the legality 
of the decision. 
The question whether the statement of grounds for the appointing authority's 
decision imposing a disciplinary measure satisfies those requirements must be 
assessed in the light not only of its wording but also in that of its context and all the 
relevant legal rules. In that regard, although the Disciplinary Board and the 
appointing authority are required to set out the elements of fact and law forming the 
legal basis for their decisions and the considerations which led to their adoption, 
they are not required to discuss all the factual and legal points which were raised 
by the person concerned during the proceedings. If the appointing authority chooses 
I-A - 255 
SUMMARY - CASE T-277/01 
the same disciplinary measure as that proposed by the Disciplinary Board, there is 
no need for a further statement of grounds as to the appropriateness of the measure. 
(see paras 70-71) 
See: C-188/96P Commission v V [1997] ECR I-6561, paras 26 to 29; T-144/96 Y v 
Parliament [1998] ECR-SC I-A-405 and II-1153; T-34/96 and T-163/96 Connolly v 
Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-87 and II-463, para. 93 
3. Once the truth of the allegations against an official has been established, it is for 
the appointing authority to choose the appropriate penalty. A decision removing an 
official from his post necessarily implies fine consideration on the part of the 
institution, in view of the serious consequences which arise from it. In that regard, 
the appointing authority has wide discretion and the Court's review is confined to 
ascertaining that the facts found are materially accurate, that there has been no 
manifest error in the assessment of the facts and that there has been no misuse of 
powers. 
(see para. 73) 
See: T-273/94 N v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-97 and II-289, para. 125 
4. The appointing authority is entitled to rely on the findings of fact in a criminal 
decision which has become final, even where the official in question disputes the 
correctness of those facts during the disciplinary proceedings. The fifth paragraph of 
Article 88 of the Staff Regulations, which establishes the principle that the 
disciplinary proceedings must await the outcome of the criminal proceedings, is 
justified in particular by the fact that the national criminal courts have greater 
investigative powers than the appointing authority. Thus, the authority may act on 
I-A - 256 
STEVENS v COMMISSION 
the basis of the findings of fact contained in a judgment in criminal proceedings 
which has become final. 
(see para. 76) 
See: T-74/96 Tzoanos v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-129 and II-343, para. 34: 
T-23/00/1 v Commission (2000] ECR-SC I-A-263 and II-1211. para. 37 
5. Since Articles 86 to 89 of the Staff Regulations do not specify any fixed 
relationship between the disciplinary measures and the various sorts of breach of 
duty for which they may be imposed and do not specify the extent to which the 
existence of aggravating or attenuating circumstances is to affect the choice of 
disciplinary measure, determination of the disciplinary measure to be imposed must 
be based on a comprehensive appraisal by the appointing authority of all the 
particular facts and circumstances in each individual case. 
(see para. 78) 
See: T-146/94 Williams v Court of Auditors [1996] ECR-SC I-A-103 and II-329, 
para. 107 
I-A - 257