Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:135
Date: 2002-05-30
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Administrative complaint;Time-limits;Form of disciplinary measure;Specific cases;Conduct befitting an official's position;Duty of loyalty;Initiation of proceedings;Effect of criminal proceedings
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

SUMMARY — CASE T-197/00 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Prior administrative complaint - Time-limit for lodging 
a complaint — Calculation 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2); Council Regulation No 1182/71, Art. 3(4)) 
2. Officials - Rights and obligations - Duty of loyalty - Concept - Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 21) 
3. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Disciplinary proceedings - Concurrent 
disciplinary and criminal proceedings - Official's obligation to provide the 
administration with sufficient information to enable it to compare the matters 
covered by the disciplinary proceedings and those covered by the criminal 
proceedings 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 88, fifth para.) 
4. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Initiation of disciplinary proceedings -
Limitation period - None - Referral to the Disciplinary Board by the appointing 
authority - Time-limit - None - Obligation on the administration to act within a 
reasonable period 
(Staff Regulations, Annex IX) 
5. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Disciplinary proceedings - Delivery of the 
opinion of the Disciplinary Board - Time-limits - Failure to observe - Time-limits 
not mandatory 
(Staff Regulations, Annex IX, Art. 7, first para.) 
6. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Measure - Discretion of the appointing 
authority - Judicial review - Scope — Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 86 to 89) 
I-A - 70 
ONIDI v COMMISSION 
7. Officials - Decision adversely affecting an official - Disciplinary measure -
Obligation to state grounds - Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 25) 
1. As the Staff Regulations are an act of the Council, and in the absence of any 
specific rules relating to the time-limits referred to in Article 90, the rules applicable 
to the time-limit laid down by Article 90(2), which provides that the complaint must 
be lodged within three months, are contained in Article 3(4) of Regulation 
No 1182/71 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time-limits. 
(see paras 46-48) 
See: T-247/97 Lonuzzo-Murgantev Parliament [1998] ECR-SC I-A-119 and II-317,para. 
38 
2. Article 21 of the Staff Regulations establishes, over and above the particular 
obligations arising therefrom in connection with the performance of specific tasks 
entrusted to an official, an official's general duty of loyalty, by virtue of which he 
must abstain, in general, from any act which may reflect on the position of the 
institution and its authorities and on the respect due to them. Activities falling 
within the realm of corruption, complained of in a disciplinary decision, 
unquestionably constitute a failure to comply with that general duty of loyalty. 
(see para. 73) 
See: T-183/96 E v ESC [1998] ECR-SC I-A-67 and II-159, para. 40 
I-A-71 
SUMMARY — CASE T-197/00 
3. It follows from the scheme of the fifth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff 
Regulations that it is for the official concerned to provide the appointing authority 
with sufficient information to enable it to determine whether the matters of which 
he is accused in disciplinary proceedings are at the same time the subject of criminal 
proceedings against him. In order to meet that obligation, the official concerned 
must, as a rule, show that criminal proceedings were initiated against him while he 
was subject to disciplinary proceedings. It is only where such criminal proceedings 
have been initiated that the matters to which they relate can be identified and 
compared with the matters in respect of which the disciplinary proceedings were 
instituted, so that it can be determined whether they are the same. 
(see para. 81) 
See: T-74/96 Tzoanos v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-129 and II-343, para. 35, 
confirmed on appeal in C-191/98 P Tzoanos v Commission [1999] ECR I-8223 
4. The Staff Regulations do not provide for any limitation period for the initiation 
of disciplinary proceedings against an official accused of having failed to fulfil one 
of his obligations under those regulations. In any event, such a limitation period 
should have been fixed in advance by the Community legislature in order to fulfil 
its function of ensuring legal certainty. Nor do the Staff Regulations impose any 
time-limits for referral to the Disciplinary Board by the appointing authority. 
Nevertheless, the disciplinary authorities are under an obligation to conduct 
disciplinary proceedings promptly and to ensure that each step in those proceedings 
is taken within a reasonable period following the previous step. 
(see paras 88, 91) 
See: T-26/89 de Compte v Parliament [1991] ECR II-781, para. 68; T-549/93 D v 
Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-13 and II-43, para. 25; T-24/98 and T-241/99 E v 
Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-149 and II-681, para. 5 
I-A - 72 
ONIDI v COMMISSION 
5. The time-limits laid down in the first paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the 
Staff Regulations are not mandatory, but constitute rules of sound administration, 
failure to comply with which may render the institution concerned liable for any 
harm caused to those concerned but does not in itself affect the validity of a 
disciplinary measure imposed after they have expired. Although it is true that 
exceeding those time-limits may entail the nullity of a measure adopted after their 
expiry, any exceeding of a time-limit cannot be penalised by automatic annulment. 
It is only in specific cases, where particular conditions are satisfied, that the validity 
of a disciplinary measure imposed following the expiry of a time-limit can be 
affected. 
(see para. 96) 
See : 13/69 Van Eick v Commission [ 1970] ECR 3, paras 3 to 7 ; 228/83 F. v Commission 
[1985] ECR 275, para. 30; 175/86 and 209/86 M. v COUNCIL [1988] ECR 1891, para. 16; 
T-242/97 Z v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC I-A-77 and II-401, paras 40 and 41, confirmed 
on appeal in C 270/99 P Z v Parliament [2001] ECR I-9197 
6. The choice of the appropriate disciplinary measure is at the discretion of the 
appointing authority, once the facts alleged in support of the charge against the 
official have been established. The Community judicature cannot find fault with that 
choice unless the measure imposed is disproportionate to the facts found against the 
official. The determination of the measure to be imposed is based on a 
comprehensive appraisal by the appointing authority of all the particular facts and 
circumstances in each individual case, since Articles 86 to 89 of the Staff 
Regulations do not specify any fixed relationship between the measures mentioned 
therein and the various kinds of breach of duty by officials and do not specify the 
extent to which the existence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances is to affect 
the choice of disciplinary measure. The review by the Community judicature is 
therefore limited to considering whether the weight given to aggravating or 
mitigating circumstances by the appointing authority was proportionate, bearing in 
mind that, when carrying out that review, the Community judicature cannot assume 
the role assigned to that authority as regards the value judgments made in that 
regard by the latter. 
(see paras 141-142) 
I-A - 73 
SUMMARY - CASE T-197/00 
See: Van Eick v Commission, cited above, paras 24 and 25; 46/72 De Greef v 
Commission [1973] ECR 543, paras 44 to 46; F. v Commission, cited above, para. 34; 
403/85 F. v Commission [1987] ECR 645, para. 26; M. v Council, cited above, para. 9; 
T-146/94 Williams v Court of Auditors [1996] ECR-SC I-A-103 and II-329, paras 106, 
107 and 108 
7. The purpose of the obligation under Article 25 of the Staff Regulations is, first, 
to provide the official concerned with sufficient information to determine whether 
or not the decision is well founded and, second, to make possible its judicial review. 
The question whether the statement of the grounds on which the act is based satisfies 
the requirements of the Staff Regulations must be assessed not only in the light of 
its wording but also in that of its context and all the relevant legal rules. Although 
the statement of the grounds for the appointing authority's decision must indicate 
precisely the allegations against the official and the considerations which led that 
authority to pronounce the chosen measure, it is not required to discuss all the 
matters of fact or of law which the official concerned raised during the proceedings. 
(see para. 156) 
See: T-144/96 Y v Parliament [1998] ECR-SC I-A-405 and II-1153, para. 22; T-40/95 
V v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-587 and II-1753, para. 36; T-34/96 and T-163/96 
Connolly v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-87 and II-463, para. 93 
I-A - 74