Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:177
Date: 2002-07-09
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: General;Effect of the outcome of the action for annulment;Procedure;Obligations of officials
Procedure: Action for damages - successful;Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY — CASE T-21/01 
Summary 
1. Officials - Rights and obligations - General obligation of independence and 
probity - Scope — Obligation for an official to be guided in his conduct solely by 
the interests of the Community — Obligation to inform the appointing authority of 
any risk of impairment of his independence — Objective nature of the obligations 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 11, first para., and 14) 
2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Illegality — Harm — Causal link 
(Art. 288, second para., EC) 
3. Officials - Actions - Action for damages — Annulment of the contested unlawful 
measure — Appropriate compensation for non-material damage 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
4. Officials — Disciplinary measures — Disciplinary proceedings — Hearing of the 
official concerned by the appointing authority - Hearing prior to the appointing 
authority 's decision to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Board — Purpose 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 87; Annex IX, Art. 1) 
1. The provisions contained in Articles 11, first paragraph, and 14 of the Staff 
Regulations place on the official a general obligation of independence and probity 
vis-à-vis his institution. In that respect they constitute pillars of the deontology of 
the Community civil service. 
I-A - 102 
ZAVVOS v COMMISSION 
In view of the cardinal importance of the guarantee of independence and integrity 
of officials as regards both the internal functioning and the external image of the 
Community institutions, and in the light of the general nature of the wording of the 
first paragraph of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations, the standard of conduct laid 
down by that provision must be understood as going beyond the prohibition on an 
official's seeking or taking instructions from a government, authority, organisation 
or person outside his institution. It requires that the official's conduct be guided, in 
all circumstances, solely by the interests of the Community. It therefore prohibits, 
in general terms, any conduct, whether or not involving a breach of a particular set 
of rules, which, in the light of the circumstances of the case, shows that the official 
concerned intended to further a particular interest to the detriment of the Community 
general interest. Against that background, the finding of an infringement of the first 
paragraph of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations, where there is a breach of a given 
set of rules, requires that it be demonstrated or, at least, that it can reasonably be 
considered, in the light of the factual circumstances of the case, that the breach in 
question was prompted by the pursuit of an interest other than the interests of the 
Communities. 
Article 14 of the Staff Regulations requires the official to inform the appointing 
authority of the existence of a personal interest such as to impair his independence 
in the handling or outcome of a matter on which he is called upon to decide. In the 
light of the fundamental nature of the objectives of independence and integrity 
pursued by that provision, and in view of the fact that the obligation laid down 
consists, for the official concerned, in informing the appointing authority as a 
precaution so that the latter can take the appropriate steps in the light of the context 
of the matter, and not in automatically giving up the handling or resolution of that 
matter or in excluding, for the purposes of such handling or resolution, those 
aspects which could involve his personal interest, Article 14 of the Staff Regulations 
has a wide scope, covering any circumstance which, in the light of the position held 
by him and of the specific circumstances of the matter, must reasonably be 
understood by the official as being likely to be seen by third parties as a possible 
source of impairment of his independence. 
I-A - 103 
SUMMARY — CASE T-21/01 
The obligations provided for in Articles 11 and 14 of the Staff Regulations are 
general and objective in their application, so that the finding of a breach of those 
obligations is not made subject to the condition that the official concerned must have 
benefited from that breach or that the breach in question must have harmed the 
institution, or to the existence of a complaint from a person who considers himself 
to have been harmed by the conduct of the official. 
(see paras 37-40) 
See: T-34/96 and T-163/96 Connolly v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-87 and II-463, 
para. 111; T-24/98 and T-241/99 E v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-149 and II-681, 
para. 76 
2. The Community can only be held liable for damages if a number of conditions 
are satisfied as regards the illegality of the allegedly wrongful conduct of the 
Community institutions, the actual harm sustained, and the existence of a causal link 
between the conduct and the harm alleged to have been sustained. 
(see para. 323) 
See: 111/86 Delauche v Commission [1987] ECR 5345, para. 30; T-140/97 Hautem v 
EIB [1999] ECR-SC I-A-171 and II-897, para. 83 
3. Annulment of the act of the administration contested by an official may in itself 
constitute appropriate and, in principle, sufficient compensation for any non-material 
damage which the person concerned may have sustained, in particular if the measure 
did not involve an injurious assessment with respect to him. 
(see para. 325) 
See: T-84/98 C v Council [2000] ECR-SC I-A-113 and II-497, para. 101 
I-A - 104 
ZAVVOS v COMMISSION 
4. Article 87 of the Staff Regulations merely requires that an official against whom 
a disciplinary measure is being contemplated be heard by the appointing authority. 
The preliminary hearing conducted on the basis of the second paragraph of 
Article 87 is designed to enable the appointing authority to assess the truth of the 
facts alleged against the official and to decide whether it is appropriate to refer the 
matter to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Article 1 of Annex IX to the Staff 
Regulations and, if so, to draw up the report stating the conduct complained of and 
the circumstances in which it occurred. If the appointing authority decides to refer 
the matter to the Disciplinary Board, inter partes proceedings between the official 
and the institution concerned will then be initiated. 
(see para. 336) 
See: Case T-74/96 Tzoanos v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-129 and II-343, para. 340 
I-A - 105