Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:208
Date: 2000-09-12
Language of the case: Portuguese
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Time-limits;Form of disciplinary measure;Conduct befitting an official's position;Duty of loyalty;General;Rights of the person concerned
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded
Origin: Belgium

SUMMARY - CASE T-259/97 
Summary 
1. Officials - Rights and obligations - Action of such a kind as to reflect on an 
official's position - Serious insults — Concept 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 12, first para.) 
2. Officials - Rights and obligations - General duty of loyalty - Duty owed to the 
institution composed of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance - Action 
of such a kind as to reflect on an official's position - Insults relating to the activity 
of the members of an institution - Honour of those members impugned 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 11, first para., 12, first para., and 21, first para.) 
3. Officials - Disciplinary rules - Official of the Court of Justice - Abuse 
directed at the institution - Disciplinary powers of the appointing authority -
Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance to review the legality of a measure 
imposing a penalty 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 86 to 89) 
4. Officials - Disciplinary rules - 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 -
Obligation to inform the person concerned of the facts of which he is accused -
Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 87) 
5. Officials - Rights and obligations - Duty to avoid action of such a kind as to 
reflect on an official's position - Requirement to show discretion - Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 11, first para., 12, first para., and 22, first para.) 
I-A - 170 
TEIXEIRA NEVES v COURT OF JUSTICE 
6. Officials - Disciplinary rules — Penalty — Discretion of the appointing authority 
— Judicial review — Scope — Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 86 to 89) 
7. Officials - Disciplinary rules - Disciplinary proceedings - Period within which 
the appointing authority is to adopt its decision as prescribed in the third 
paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Obligation of the 
administration to act within a reasonable time - Non-observance - Consequences 
- Liability incurred by the institution - Assessment of reasonable time - Taking 
into account of the time which has elapsed between one procedural step and the 
subsequent step 
(Staff Regulations, Annex IX, Art. 7) 
1. Not only imputations likely to be detrimental to the dignity of the persons to 
whom they refer as such but also allegations of such a kind as to cast discredit on 
their professional honour constitute serious insults which impugn the honour of 
those persons. The form of the allegations does not matter; both direct attacks and 
allegations made in a manner expressing doubt, indirectly, covertly, by way of 
insinuation or referring to a person not expressly mentioned but who can be 
identified are covered. 
(see paras 29, 30 and 47) 
See: T-146/89 Williams v Court of Auditors [1991] ECR II-1293, paras 76 and 80; 
T-146/94 Williams v Court of Auditors [1996] ECR-SC I-A-103 and II-329, paras 66 and 
67; C-156/96 P Williams v Court of Auditors [1997] ECR I-329, paras 21 and 22 
I-A - 171 
SUMMARY — CASE T-259/97 
2. The general duty of loyalty deriving from Articles 11, first paragraph, 12, first 
paragraph, and 21, first paragraph, of the Staff Regulations is binding on every 
official vis-à-vis not only his superiors but also the institution to which be belongs. 
From an administrative point of view, the Court of Justice and the Court of First 
Instance form a single institution. It follows that the institution to which an official 
of the Court of Justice belongs and to which he must show loyalty includes both the 
Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. Accordingly, the conduct of an 
official of the Court of Justice, in so far as it impugns the honour and consideration 
of the Court of First Instance, constitutes a breach of Articles 11, first paragraph, 
12, first paragraph, and 21, first paragraph, of the Staff Regulations. Furthermore, 
it clearly cannot be claimed that the dissemination of insults in regard to members 
of the Court of First Instance, in the exercise of their judicial functions, does not 
harm the reputation of the Community and consequently its interests. 
Nor does it matter, in order for there to be a breach of the professional duties laid 
down in the Staff Regulations, that the assertions of the official concerned related 
to the activity of the members of a Community institution. It is sufficient that they 
impugned the honour of the persons concerned. The professional duties laid down 
in the Staff Regulations include the official's duty to refrain from any public 
expression of opinion that may reflect on his position. Insults expressed publicly 
by an official, and impugning the honour of the persons to whom they refer, in 
themselves reflect on the position of the official for the purposes of the first 
paragraph of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations. 
(see paras 44 to 47) 
See: T-146/89 Williams v Court of Auditors, cited above, paras 72, 76 and 80; T-146/94 
Williams v Court of Auditors, cited above, para. 66; C-156/96 Williams v Court of 
Auditors, cited above, paras 21 and 22 
I-A - 172 
TEIXEIRA NEVES v COURT OF JUSTICE 
3. An official of the Court of Justice cannot rely on the principles of the separation 
of powers, equal treatment for officials of the different institutions and the 
impartiality of the court as against the disciplinary powers of the appointing 
authority in regard to him and as against the jurisdiction of the Court of First 
Instance to review the legality of a disciplinary measure imposed on him for abuse 
directed at the institution. 
First, there is no confusion contrary to the principle of the separation of powers 
between the Court of First Instance, in the exercise of its judicial functions, and the 
Court's personnel administration, since the members of the Court of First Instance 
cannot, directly or indirectly, either exercise or solicit the exercise of disciplinary 
powers as against officials of the Court for acts connected with the proceedings. It 
follows from Articles 3(2) and 6(3) of the Decision of the Court of Justice of 25 
January 1995 on the exercise of the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations on 
the appointing authority that the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings falls 
within the exclusive competence of the Administrative Committee - for officials in 
Category A and the LA Service - and that of the Registrar of the Court of Justice 
- for officials in Categories B, C and D. There is no hierarchical relationship 
between the members of the Court of First Instance and the Administrative 
Committee or the Registrar. 
Next, there is no difference in treatment between officials of the Court and officials 
of the other Community institutions. The dissemination of insulting statements 
concerning the members of the Court of First Instance, in so far as it is detrimental 
to the interest of the Community and the dignity of the European civil service, 
constitutes, for any official, a breach of the professional duties laid down in 
Articles 11, first paragraph, 12, first paragraph, and 21, first paragraph, of the Staff 
Regulations. 
I-A - 173 
SUMMARY - CASE T-259/97 
Last, it follows from an analysis of the law applicable to the international civil 
service and of the constitutional law of certain Member States that the principle of 
the impartiality of the court is not absolute. Certain requirements in the general 
interest, and in particular the requirement to protect the autonomy of certain 
institutions, may require the introduction of restrictions on its application. The 
protection of the autonomy of the Community Courts requires that all disciplinary 
matters relating to officials of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice, 
including those relating to the dissemination of statements which are insulting to 
members of those organs, in the exercise of their duties, are outside the jurisdiction 
of the national courts. 
(see paras 49 to 51) 
4. Unlike the hearing provided for in the first paragraph of Article 87 of the Staff 
Regulations, the hearing provided for in the second paragraph of that article is 
intended solely to allow the appointing authority to assess, prima facie, the 
materiality and the gravity of the facts of which the official concerned is accused, 
in the light of the explanations which he provides, and to form an opinion as to 
whether it is appropriate to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Board with a view 
to the adoption of a disciplinary measure, should that be necessary. 
Having regard to that function of the preliminary hearing, and in the absence of any 
provision in the Staff Regulations requiring the appointing authority to transmit to 
the official concerned the documents which at that stage of the proceedings 
constitute his disciplinary file, the appointing authority cannot be required, in the 
absence of a request by the official concerned, to communicate to the latter the full 
text of the request to open disciplinary proceedings against him. It is sufficient that 
the official concerned is clearly informed of all the facts which are alleged against 
him in that request and of the provisions of the Staff Regulations relied on as against 
him. 
(see paras 66 to 67) 
I-A - 174 
TEIXEIRA NEVES v COURT OF JUSTICE 
5. The duty to avoid action of such a kind as to reflect on his position is binding on 
an official in all circumstances. It follows that an official cannot use the exercise 
of his freedom to belong to a trade union as a pretext for breaching his professional 
duties with impunity. 
However, certain circumstances may justify a less rigorous interpretation of the 
official's duty to show discretion. That is so, in particular, where the official 
exercises his right to freedom of expression for the purpose of a general staff 
meeting. In that case, the official cannot be considered to have failed to meet that 
requirement unless he uses seriously insulting language or language which seriously 
undermines the respect due to the persons to whom the language is directed. 
(see paras 94 to 96) 
See: T-146/94 Williams v Court of Auditors, cited above, para. 68; C-150/98 P ESC v 
E [1999] ECR I-8877, para. 15 
6. Where the truth of the facts alleged against an official is established, it is for the 
appointing authority to choose the appropriate disciplinary measure to be imposed. 
The Community judicature may substitute its assessment for that of the authority, 
only in the event of manifest error or misuse of powers. 
(see para. 108) 
See: T-12/94 Daffix v Commission[1991] ECR-SC I-A-453 and II-1197, para. 63 
I-A - 175 
SUMMARY - CASE T-259/97 
7. Failure to comply with the time-limits prescribed by Article 7 of Annex IX to the 
Staff Regulations may, in certain circumstances, render the institution liable. 
However, the time-limits provided for in Article 7 of Annex IX are not mandatory 
but constitute a rule of sound administration whereby the institution is required to 
conduct the disciplinary proceedings diligently and act in such a way that each 
procedural step is taken within a reasonable period following the previous step. 
Furthermore, for the purpose of assessing what constituted a reasonable period 
within which disciplinary proceedings had to be brought, the Community judicature 
must take into consideration only the period which has elapsed between one 
procedural step and the subsequent step. That assessment is a matter separate from 
the total length of the disciplinary proceedings. 
(see para. 123) 
See: 13/69 Van Eyck v Commission [1970] ECR 3, para. 7; C-326/91 P De Compte v 
Parliament [1994] ECR I-2091, para. 31; T-549/93 D v Commission [1995] ECR-SC 
I-A-13 and II-43, para. 25 
I-A - 176