Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:273
Date: 2000-11-21
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: General;Effect of criminal proceedings;Disciplinary Board
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASE T-23/00 
Summary 
1. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Disciplinary proceedings - Inapplicability 
of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Public hearing -
No obligation 
(Staff Regulations, Annex IX) 
2. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Criminal conviction of the official 
concerned by a national court - Right of the appointing authority to rely on the 
findings of fact in the final decision of the criminal court 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 88, fifth para.) 
3. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Procedure before the Disciplinary Board 
- Hearing of witnesses - Discretion of the Disciplinary Board 
(Staff Regulations, Annex IX) 
4. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Procedure before the Disciplinary Board 
- Hearing of the official concerned by one or more members of the Disciplinary 
Board - Whether permissible - Conditions 
(Staff Regulations, Annex IX, Art. 4) 
1. Disciplinary proceedings before a Community institution are administrative, 
rather than judicial, with the result that the institution concerned cannot be 
characterised as a 'tribunal' within the meaning of Article 6 of the European 
Convention on Human Rights. 
I-A - 264 
A v COMMISSION 
Although a public hearing is in principle the rule for judicial proceedings, there is 
no requirement in the Staff Regulations that the hearing in disciplinary proceedings 
be public. 
(see paras 24, 28) 
See: T-26/89 de Compte v Parliament [1991] ECR II-781, para. 94; C-252/97 P N v 
Commission [1998] ECR I-4871, para. 52 
2. 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 the facts during the disciplinary proceedings. The fifth paragraph of 
Article 88 of the Staff Regulations, which enshrines 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. 
(see para. 37) 
See: T-74/96 Tzoanos v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-129 and II-343, para. 34 
3. It is for the Disciplinary Board to assess both the relevance of an application to 
hear witnesses in relation to the subject-matter of the dispute and the need to 
examine the witnesses named. 
(see para. 39) 
See: 35/67 Van Eick v Commission [1968] ECR 329, at 342 
I-A - 265 
SUMMARY - CASE T-23/00 
4. The Disciplinary Board is entitled to entrust to one or more of its members the 
task of hearing an official subject to disciplinary proceedings where reasons related 
to the proper functioning of the services so require, provided, however, that the 
rights of the defence of the official concerned are not affected. 
(see para. 44) 
See: Van Eick, cited above, at 345 
I-A - 266