Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:128
Date: 2000-05-16
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: General;Time-limits;Rights of the person concerned
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASE T-121/99 
Summary 
1. Officials — Disciplinary measures — Disciplinary proceedings — Time-limit laid 
down by the third paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations for reaching a 
decision on the position of a suspended official — Whether mandatory — Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 88, third para.) 
2. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Proceedings before the Disciplinary Board 
— Time-limits set by Article 7 of Annex IX — Not mandatory — Failure to comply 
— Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Annex IX, Art. 7) 
3. Officials — Disciplinary measures — Disciplinary proceedings — Hearing of the 
person concerned before the adoption by the appointing authority of the decision 
closing the proceedings — Time-limit f or invitation to the hearing not set in the Staff 
Regulations - Presumption that officials know the Staff Regulations - Presumption 
of awareness that hearing will be held shortly after receipt by the person concerned 
of the reasoned opinion of the Disciplinary Board 
(Staff Regulations, Annex IX, Art. 7, third para.) 
4. Officials — Disciplinary measures — Disciplinary proceedings — Right of official 
to financial assistance with legal fees during proceedings - None — Payment at the 
end of the proceedings by the institution of costs incurred by the official on his own 
initiative — Conditions 
(Staff Regulations, Annex IX, Art. 10) 
5. Officials — Disciplinary measures — Disciplinary proceedings — Prior hearing 
of the person concerned by the appointing authority — Purpose — Obligation to 
communicate the file to the person concerned before that hearing — None in the 
absence of a request by the person concerned 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 87, second para.) 
I-A - 86 
IRVING v COMMISSION 
6. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Disciplinary proceedings - Place where 
held — Automatic link with place of employment of official - None 
(Staff Regulations, Annex IX, Arts 4 and 7) 
1. The purpose of the third paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations is to 
prevent an official subject to disciplinary proceedings from being deprived of his 
remuneration for over four months without his case being decided. That time-limit 
of four months is therefore mandatory only to the extent that, following its expiry, 
the official once again becomes entitled to payment of his full remuneration and to 
payment of the amounts withheld from his salary. On the other hand, the fact that 
the appointing authority has not reached a final decision on the case of the official 
concerned within the period prescribed for that purpose cannot, as such, result in 
the unlawfulness of the decision closing the disciplinary proceedings against him. 
(see para. 49) 
See: T-549/93 D v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-13 and II-43, paras 32 and 33; and 
T-219/96 Y v Parliament [1998] ECR-SC I-A-429 and II-1235, paras 33 and 42 
2. The time-limits for the delivery of the reasoned opinion of the Disciplinary Board 
and for the adoption of the decision of the appointing authority laid down in 
Article 7 of Annex IX are not mandatory but constitute rules of sound administration 
the purpose of which is to avoid, in the interests both of the administration and of 
officials, undue delay in adopting the decision terminating the disciplinary 
proceedings with the result that a failure to observe them may render the institution 
liable for any damage caused to those concerned. 
I-A - 87 
SUMMARY - CASE T-121/99 
Whilst failure to comply with those time-limits may result in the decision being 
declared void, not every failure to comply with time-limits can be penalised by 
automatic annulment. Only the fulfilment of a set of specific conditions can, in 
specific cases, affect the validity of a disciplinary measure imposed after expiry of 
a time-limit. 
In that regard, the fact that each of those time-limits is exceeded by approximately 
one and a half months cannot, in any event, be considered unreasonable, having 
regard to its impact on the total duration, amounting to eight months, of the 
disciplinary proceedings, which is not excessive. 
(see paras 53 to 56) 
See: 13/69 Van Eick v Commission [1970] ECR 3, para. 7; 228/83 F v Commission 
[1985] ECR 275, para. 30; 175/86 and 209/86 M v Council [1988] ECR 1891, para. 6; 
T-26/89 de Compte v Parliament, [1991] ECR II-781, para. 88; D v Commission, cited 
above, para. 25; T-12/94 Daffix v Commission [1997] ECR-SCI-A-77 and II-1197,paras 
130 to 133; T-242/97 Z v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC I-A-77 and II-401, para. 40 
3. As the third paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations does not 
lay down any time-limit for summoning the official concerned to the hearing 
preceding the adoption by the appointing authority of its decision closing the 
disciplinary proceedings brought against that official, and as all officials are 
presumed to know the Staff Regulations, of which Annex IX is an integral part, that 
official must have been aware, from the moment he received the reasoned opinion 
of the Disciplinary Board, that his hearing by the appointing authority was imminent 
and that it was therefore necessary to prepare as soon as possible his defence, for 
the hearing, against the complaints with which that opinion was concerned. His late 
receipt of the letter calling on him to attend that hearing cannot therefore affect the 
preparation of his defence for that hearing. 
(see paras 67 and 72) 
I-A - 88 
IRVING v COMMISSION 
See: Daffix v Commission, cited above, para. 116 
4. There is no provision in the Staff Regulations entitling an official subject to 
disciplinary proceedings to obtain from the Commission during such proceedings 
financial assistance to enable him to meet his legal fees incurred in the course of the 
proceedings. 
It follows from Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations that the payment by 
the Commission of expenses incurred by an official on his own initiative in the 
course of disciplinary proceedings, and legal fees in particular, can only be made 
on conclusion of such proceedings and, moreover, is only possible if no disciplinary 
measure or only a minor disciplinary measure is imposed at the end of the 
proceedings. 
(see para. 82) 
5. The purpose of the hearing provided for in the second paragraph of Article 87 
of the Staff Regulations is to enable the appointing authority to assess the 
seriousness of the matters of which the official concerned is accused in the light of 
the explanations provided by the official and to decide whether disciplinary 
measures should be imposed on him and whether or not it is necessary to refer the 
case to the Disciplinary Board before adopting such a measure. 
I-A - 89 
SUMMARY — CASE T-121/99 
Having regard to the purpose of this preliminary hearing and in the absence of any 
provision of the Staff Regulations obliging the appointing authority automatically to 
allow the official concerned access to his disciplinary file at this stage in 
proceedings, the appointing authority cannot be obliged, in the absence of any 
request by the person concerned, to communicate the documents making up the file 
at that stage to that person before the matter has been referred to the Disciplinary 
Board. 
(see paras 94 and 95) 
See: 255/83 and 256/83 R v Commission [1985] ECR 2473, para. 17; T-183/96 E v ESC 
[1998] ECR-SC I-A-67 and II-159, para. 25 
6. There is no provision of the Staff Regulations which establishes an automatic link 
between the place of employment of the official against whom disciplinary 
proceedings are brought and the place where those proceedings are held. 
(see para. 112) 
I-A - 90