Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:212
Date: 2002-09-11
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Effect of the outcome of the action for annulment;Obligations of officials
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - CASE T-89/01 
Summary 
1. Officials - Rights and obligations - Obligation to declare spouse's gainful 
employment - Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 13) 
2. Officials - Rights and obligations - Obligation of independence and integrity 
— Obligation to inform the administration as a precaution of any possible conflict 
of interests 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 14) 
3. Officials - Rights and obligations - Obligation of independence and integrity 
- Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 11, first para.) 
4. Officials - Rights and obligations - Spouse's right to be gainfully employed -
Employment as such not a breach of the official's obligation of independence 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 11, second para., and 13) 
5. Officials - Actions - Action for compensation - Annulment of the contested 
unlawful measure - Appropriate compensation for non-material harm — Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
1. Article 13 of the Staff Regulations, which imposes on the official the obligation 
to inform the appointing authority by which he is employed of any gainful 
I-A - 154 
WILLEME v COMMISSION 
employment engaged in by his spouse, applies irrespective of the nature, duration 
or extent of the gainful employment of the official's spouse. 
(see para. 34) 
2. Under Article 14 of the Staff Regulations, an official who in the performance of 
his duties is called upon to decide on a matter in the handling or outcome of which 
he has a personal interest such as to impair his independence must inform the 
appointing authority. 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. Article 14 of the Staff Regulations has a wide scope. It 
covers any circumstance which the official who is called upon to decide on a matter 
must reasonably understand as being such as to be seen by third parties as a possible 
source of impairment of his independence in that matter. However, the existence of 
professional relations between an official and a third party cannot, in principle, 
mean that the official's independence is or appears to be impaired when that official 
is called upon to decide on a matter in which that third party is involved. 
(see paras 47. 58) 
3. The first paragraph of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations requires that the official 
conduct himself, in all circumstances, in a manner guided solely by the interests of 
the Communities and prohibits any conduct which, in the light of the circumstances 
of the case, indicates that the official concerned took into account an interest other 
than the Community interest. 
(see para. 71) 
I-A - 155 
SUMMARY - CASE T-89/01 
4. The Staff Regulations provide for the right for the spouse of an official to receive 
remuneration without that constituting, in itself, a breach of the second paragraph of 
Article 11 of the Staff Regulations. Consequently, under Article 13 of the Staff 
Regulations, the spouse of an official may engage in gainful employment and 
receive remuneration without there being any need for the official to obtain the 
permission of the appointing authority since he is obliged only to declare that 
employment. Accordingly, the receipt of remuneration by the spouse of an official 
without prior permission from the appointing authority cannot, as such, constitute 
a breach by him of the second paragraph of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations. 
(see para. 74) 
5. Except in special circumstances, the annulment of a decision imposing a 
disciplinary measure on an official constitutes, in itself, appropriate and, in 
principle, sufficient compensation for the non-material harm which that official may 
have suffered as regards his professional reputation. However, the non-material 
harm suffered by that official through having been excluded from the world of work 
for a long period may give rise to separate compensation. 
(see paras 97, 101) 
See: C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I-225, paras 25 to 29; T-165/89 Plug v 
Commission [1992] ECR II-367, para. 118; T-140/97 Hautem v EIB [1999] ECR-SC 
I-A-171 and II-897, para. 82 
I-A - 156