JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)
10 June 2004
Case T-258/01
Pierre Eveillard
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Officials – Disciplinary measures – Relegation in step – Articles 11 and 14 of the Staff Regulations – Contract for the security of the Commission’s buildings)
Full text in French II - 0000
Application:         for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 June 2001 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 13 March 2001 whereby he
contested the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 19 December 2000 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary
measure of relegation by two steps.
Held:         The decision of 19 December 2000 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary penalty of reduction by two steps is annulled.
The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
Summary
1.     Officials – Actions – Action against the decision rejecting a complaint – Admissibility
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
2.     Officials – Rights and obligations – Proposal from a category B official to engage staff assigned to administrative tasks
under a buildings security contract – Widespread practice instigated by the hierarchy and not inherently fraudulent – Breach
of obligations under the Staff Regulations – None
(Staff Regulations, Art. 11)
1.     An official’s action formally directed against the express or implied rejection of a prior administrative complaint lodged
under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations has the effect of bringing before the Court the act adversely affecting the official
against which the complaint was submitted.
(see para. 30)
See: 293/87 Vainker v Parliament [1989] ECR 23, para. 8; T-33/91 Williams v Court of Auditors [1992] ECR II-2499, para. 23; T-36/94 Capitanio v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-449 and II-1279, para. 33
2.     It is unreasonable to accuse an official in category B, whose duties, according to Article 5(1) of the Staff Regulations,
are executive duties, and not administrative duties which correspond to those assigned to officials in category A, of failing
to comply with his obligations under the Staff Regulations merely by virtue of having proposed to engage persons to carry
out administrative tasks within the institution, in connection with the execution of a buildings security contract, when that
practice had been organised by the various Commission departments, was widespread, had been instigated by the hierarchy of
the institution and, although irregular, was not inherently fraudulent.
(see para. 47)