Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 17 October 1991. - Henri de Compte v European Parliament. - Officials - Disciplinary measures - Downgrading. - Case T-26/89.



European Court reports 1991 Page II-00781



Summary

Parties

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Initiation of disciplinary proceedings - Limitation period - No limitation period - Period within which final discharge must be given to an accounting officer - Not relevant

(Staff Regulations, Arts 86 to 89; Annex IX; Financial Regulation, Art. 72)

2. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Disciplinary proceedings - Reopening after judicial annulment of the sanction on grounds of formal defects - Resumption of the proceedings at the point at which the defect arose

(Staff Regulations, Annex IX)

3. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Procedure before the Disciplinary Board - Time-limits laid down in Article 7 of Annex IX - Obligation on the administration to act within a reasonable period - Failure - Consequences

(Staff Regulations, Annex IX, Art. 7)

4. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Disciplinary proceedings - Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights not applicable

(Staff Regulations, Annex IX)

5. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Procedure before the Disciplinary Board - Communication of the complete file to the person concerned - No obligation in the absence of a request by the person concerned

(Staff Regulations, Annex IX, Arts 2 and 7, first paragraph)

6. Budget of the European Communities - Implementation - System of advance funds - Administration - Responsibilities of the accounting officer and the administrator of advance funds - Distinction

(Financial Regulation, Art. 17, third paragraph, and Arts 20, 49, 63 and 70)

7. Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Sanction - Lawfulness - Decision taken at the conclusion of proceedings brought against another official - Not relevant

(Staff Regulations, Art. 86)

8. Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Sanction - Discretion of the appointing authority - Judicial control - Scope - Limits

(Staff Regulations, Arts 86 to 89)

Summary

1. In regulating the disciplinary system applicable to Community officials in Articles 86 to 89 and in Annex IX, the Staff Regulations do not provide for any limitation period with regard to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. In order to fulfil its function of ensuring legal certainty, a limitation period must be fixed in advance by the Community legislature.

In the absence of such a limitation period in the Staff Regulations, it cannot be accepted that the expiry of the period laid down by Article 72 of the Financial Regulation for delivery of a final discharge to an accounting officer can result in the barring of all disciplinary proceedings against the latter. Disciplinary proceedings, which are independent of other administrative proceedings, are designed to safeguard the internal order of the public service, whereas the delivery of a final discharge, as provided for under Article 72 of the Financial Regulation, is designed to verify officially the accuracy and propriety of the accounts and, more specifically, their presentation and auditing, in order that an end may be put to the uncertainty regarding the liability of the accounting officer concerned for a given financial year.

This distinction between the two types of proceedings, however, does not mean that no substantive account can be taken, in the context of disciplinary proceedings, of findings made and conclusions reached in the decision on final discharge.

2. In a case where, following the annulment by the Court, for reasons of a formal defect, of a decision by the appointing authority imposing a disciplinary sanction on an official, that authority reopens the disciplinary proceedings, such reopening cannot be regarded as a fresh reference of the matter to the competent authorities, but must be seen as a resumption of the proceedings from the point at which the formal defect confirmed by the Court arose.

3. Although the time-limits laid down in Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations for the delivery by the Disciplinary Board of its reasoned opinion and the adoption by the appointing authority of its decision are not mandatory, they do constitute rules of sound administration the purpose of which is to avoid, in the interests both of the administration and of officials, unjustified delay in adopting the decision terminating the disciplinary proceedings. Disciplinary authorities are therefore under an obligation to conduct disciplinary proceedings with due diligence and to ensure that each procedural step is taken within a reasonable period following the previous step. Failure to comply with that period (which can be assessed only in the light of the specific circumstances of each set of proceedings) may not only render the institution liable but may also result in the measure adopted after the expiry of the period being declared void.

4. Article 6 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights does not apply to what are strictly disciplinary matters within the public service in view of the fact that such proceedings do not come within the scope of "penal proceedings" referred to in that article.

5. It follows from Article 2 and the first paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations that the official against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and his advisers are entitled to be informed of all the facts on which a decision has been based in sufficient time to submit their observations. However, in the absence of a request to that effect, no obligation on the part of the appointing authority to communicate the complete file to the official in question can be inferred from the Staff Regulations.

6. The respective powers and responsibilities of the accounting officer and the administrator of advance funds are defined in particular, so far as the administration of advance funds is concerned, by the third paragraph of Article 17 and by Articles 20, 49, 63 and 70 of the Financial Regulation, in addition to the articles in that regulation dealing with the measures of implementation. Those articles provide that the setting up and consequently the modification of an advance funds office is to be the subject of a decision by the budgetary authorities. The administrator of advance funds is required to keep account of the funds at his disposal and of expenditure effected, in accordance with the instructions of the accounting officer, to whom he is responsible for the making of payments. The role of the accounting officer, which is to ensure collection or payment of sums by the institution, is not limited in this area to the issuing of instructions. He is required to carry out checks, normally on the spot and without warning, on the funds allocated to the administrator of advance funds and on his accounts.

It follows from this division of responsibilities between the accounting officer and the administrator of advance funds that it is the latter who is primarily responsible for the advance funds office and that he may be discharged from that responsibility only if he has received contrary instructions from the accounting officer. On the other hand, the accounting officer is jointly responsible if, once informed of possible irregularities, he fails to take appropriate measures or refrains from carrying out ordinary or extraordinary checks on the accounts of the advance funds office.

It also follows that responsibility for the production and retention of supporting documents for advance funds rests in the first instance on the administrator of advance funds. The accounting officer, who is required to check the accounts of the advance fund and to issue instructions to the administrator of advance funds, becomes jointly responsible from the moment at which he fails to issue appropriate instructions for the retention of those documents.

7. In view of the fact that each set of disciplinary proceedings is distinct and separate and that an applicant may not rely, in support of his claim, on an unlawful act committed in favour of another, an official cannot rely on the fact that no disciplinary sanction was imposed on another official, against whom disciplinary proceedings were brought in respect of facts connected with those of which the former is accused, for the purpose of contesting the sanction imposed on him.

8. Once the truth of the allegations against an official has been established, it is for the appointing authority to choose the appropriate sanction. In view of the fact that Articles 86 to 89 of the Staff Regulations do not specify any fixed relationship between the measures provided for and the various types of failures by officials to comply with their obligations, the determination of the sanction to be imposed in each individual case must be based on a comprehensive appraisal by the appointing authority of all the particular facts and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances peculiar to each individual case. The Court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the appointing authority except in the case of a manifest error or misuse of powers.

Parties

In Case T-26/89,

Henri de Compte, an official of the European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented by E. Lebrun, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Schiltz, 83 Boulevard Grande-Duchesse Charlotte,

applicant,

v

European Parliament, represented by Jorge Campinos, Jurisconsult, and P. Kyst, a member of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroek, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the General Secretariat of the European Parliament, Kirchberg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for the annulment of the decision of 18 January 1988 by which the President of the Parliament imposed on Mr de Compte the sanction of downgrading from Grade A 3, Step 8, to Grade A 7, Step 6,

The Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),

composed of: C. Yeraris, President of Chamber, A. Saggio and B. Vesterdorf, Judges,

Registrar: B. Pastor, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 19 March 1991,

gives the following

Judgment

Grounds

Facts and procedure

1 Pursuant to Article 206a(4) of the EEC Treaty, the Court of Auditors began in July 1981 to examine the cash office of members of the European Parliament (hereinafter referred to as "the Parliament"). Its initial conclusions, notified to the Parliament in October 1981 and April 1982, were highly critical.

2 On 30 April 1982, Mr de Compte, who at that time was an official in Grade A 3 and working as an accounting officer in the Parliament, was transferred.

3 On 6 July 1982, the Court of Auditors adopted a special report on the members' cash office of the Parliament (Official Journal 1982 C 202, p. 1) in which it found that there had been serious breaches of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (Official Journal 1977 L 356, p. 1, hereinafter referred to as "the Financial Regulation") and in which it requested the Parliament to take the necessary measures to clear all irregular transactions, to recover all sums due and to establish whether the accounting officer, the administrator of advance funds or the financial controller were in any way responsible.

4 The irregularities found by the Court of Auditors were confirmed by a report drawn up, at the Parliament' s request, by an independent firm of auditors.

5 By letter of 30 September 1982 addressed to the chairman of the Disciplinary Board, the President of the Parliament, in his capacity as the appointing authority, informed him that he had decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings under the second paragraph of Article 87 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities ("the Staff Regulations") and Article 71 of the Financial Regulation against Mr de Compte.

6 Following a claim by the applicant that he had not been given a prior opportunity to state his case, as required under the second paragraph of Article 87 of the Staff Regulations, the President of the Parliament informed him by letter of 14 January 1983 of his decision to annul that procedure. In that letter, the President also informed the applicant of certain matters concerning the operation of the members' cash office which might give rise to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him.

7 On 28 January 1983, the applicant was given a prior opportunity to state his case, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 87 of the Staff Regulations, by the Director-General of Administration, Staff and Finances of the Parliament.

8 On 13 April 1983, the President of the Parliament, pursuant to Article 87 of the Staff Regulations and Article 1 of Annex IX thereto (hereinafter referred to as "the annex"), submitted to the Disciplinary Board a report setting out the complaints made against the applicant. The Disciplinary Board met on several occasions during the period from 2 June 1983 to 10 February 1984.

9 On this latter date, the Disciplinary Board, in a reasoned opinion, proposed by three votes to two that Mr de Compte should be reprimanded; the two members opposed to that disciplinary measure argued that no action whatever should be taken against the accused official.

10 In the meantime, by decision of 18 May 1983, the Parliament had granted a discharge to its President for the 1981 financial year while postponing final discharge to the accounting officer to enable the Committee on Budgetary Control to effect certain work (Official Journal 1983 C 161, p. 98).

11 On 16 March 1984, the President of the Parliament decided to remove the applicant from his post, without reduction or withdrawal of entitlement to retirement pension. That decision upheld several complaints made against the applicant in respect of various irregularities which the latter was alleged to have committed in the course of his work as an accounting officer.

12 On 21 March 1984, the applicant submitted to the appointing authority a complaint, within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, against the decision of 16 March 1984 removing him from his post. That complaint was supplemented by an additional complaint of 11 April 1984 based essentially on the fact that the Parliament had in the meantime granted him final discharge for the 1981 financial year, that is to say, the financial year during which the facts of which he was accused were alleged to have occurred.

13 By decision of 10 April 1984, the Parliament had in fact granted final discharge to its accounting officer for the 1981 financial year. However, after referring in citations E, F and G to the special report of the Court of Auditors on the members' cash office, to the Parliament' s decision of 18 May 1983 granting a discharge to its President and postponing the decision on final discharge of the accounting officer, as well as to the letter of 6 June 1983 from the President of the Parliament stating the reasons which led him to request postponement of the final discharge decision for 1981, that decision of 10 April 1984 stated, in the first recital in its preamble, that "all relevant information, including the letter of 6 June 1983, will be taken into account for the purposes of the 1982 discharge" (Official Journal 1984 C 127, p. 43).

14 On 24 May 1984, the President of the Parliament, in reply to the complaint and additional complaint submitted to him, decided to amend the disciplinary sanction of removal from post to that of downgrading to Grade A 7, Step 6. The statement of reasons for that decision referred to the reasons given in support of the initial sanction of removal from post.

15 On 4 June 1984, Mr de Compte brought simultaneously:

- a complaint before the President of the Parliament against the new decision of 24 May 1984;

- an application before the Court of Justice for the annulment of the above decision of 24 May 1984 downgrading him;

- an application for interim measures seeking a stay on the implementation of that decision until the Court had ruled on the main application.

16 By order of 3 July 1984 (Case 141/84 R, [1984] ECR 2575), the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of Justice ordered the operation of the decision of 24 May 1984 to be suspended until the Court had given judgment in the main action.

17 By decision of 4 July 1984, the President of the Parliament rejected the complaint which the applicant had submitted on 4 June 1984.

18 In its judgment of 20 June 1985 (Case 141/84, [1985] ECR 1951), the Court found that the procedure followed by the Disciplinary Board had been vitiated by a fundamental defect (examination of witnesses in the absence of the applicant and his legal representative) and accordingly annulled the appointing authority' s decision of 24 May 1984.

19 By letter of 24 July 1985, the President of the Parliament submitted to the Court of Auditors a request drawn up by the Budgetary Control Committee of the Parliament seeking a new opinion on the most appropriate way to clear the deficit established in the members' cash office for the 1981 financial year.

20 On 7 November 1985, the Court of Auditors delivered its opinion, in which it reached the conclusion that the accounting officer and the administrator of advance funds were liable under Article 70 of the Financial Regulation.

21 By decision of 11 July 1986, the Parliament granted a discharge to its President for the 1982 financial year and authorized him to grant a discharge to its accounting officers in respect of that financial year, "excluding therefrom the sum of 91 263 ECU and the matters relating thereto described in the letter from the President of the Court of Auditors dated 7 November 1985 and the accompanying advice of the Court of Auditors". It also instructed its President to take appropriate action to resolve the outstanding matters (Official Journal 1986 C 227, p. 154).

22 By letter of 9 December 1986, the President of the Parliament intimated to the applicant that he intended to re-open the disciplinary procedure against him and invited him to submit his observations on the report containing the facts alleged, which the then President had submitted on 13 April 1983 to the Disciplinary Board on the opinion of the Court of Auditors of 7 November 1985 and the decision of the Parliament of 11 July 1986.

23 Mr de Compte was heard on 12 January and 23 February 1987 and submitted written observations on 30 January and 11 February 1987, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 87 of the Staff Regulations.

24 By a letter of 24 June 1987 addressed to the chairman of the Disciplinary Board designated by the institution, the President of the Parliament reopened the disciplinary proceedings previously initiated against Mr de Compte on the basis of the report which had been submitted on 13 April 1983 to the previous Disciplinary Board.

25 The Disciplinary Board met on several occasions between 9 July 1987 and 27 November 1987. On this latter date, it issued a reasoned opinion in which it unanimously recommended to the President of the Parliament that Mr De Compte should be downgraded, in view of the seriousness of the complaints upheld and having regard to the extenuating circumstances.

26 In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 7 of the annex, the applicant was heard on 16 December 1987 and submitted his final observations by letter of 7 December 1987.

27 By decision of 18 January 1988, notified by letter of the same date and intended to take effect on 1 February 1988, the President of the Parliament downgraded the applicant from Grade A 3, Step 8, to Grade A 7, Step 6.

28 It was under those circumstances that Mr de Compte, on 10 February 1988, contested the decision of the President of the Parliament by bringing simultaneously:

- a complaint before the appointing authority under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

- the present application for annulment;

- an application for an interim order suspending the operation of that decision until the delivery of the judgment in the main action.

29 By an order of 16 March 1988 (Case 44/88 R, [1988] ECR 1669), the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Justice dismissed the application for interim measures on the ground that the applicant had failed to show the urgency required by Article 83(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

30 By a decision of 27 May 1988, the President of the Parliament dismissed the complaint submitted by the applicant on 10 February 1988.

31 The written procedure, which took place entirely before the Court of Justice, followed the normal course.

32 By order of 15 November 1989, the Court of Justice transferred the case to the Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 14 of the Council Decision of 24 October 1988 establishing a Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

33 Following the report of the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) decided to open the oral procedure and at the same time to request the Parliament to provide certain details which it considered necessary for the purposes of the case.

34 On 15 February 1991, the Parliament lodged the documents requested, along with its replies to the Court' s written questions.

35 The hearing was held on 19 March 1991. The parties' representatives made oral submissions and replied to the questions posed by the Court.

Forms of order sought by the parties

36 The applicant claims that the Court should:

(i) declare the action admissible and well founded;

(ii) in consequence, annul the decision of 18 January 1988 by which the President of the Parliament imposed on him the penalty of downgrading from Grade A 3, Step 8, to Grade A 7, Step 6; and

(iii) order the Parliament to pay the costs.

In his reply, the applicant submitted in the alternative that the Court should also:

(i) appoint a committee of three experts whose task would be to deliver a reasoned opinion on the complaints upheld against the applicant and to reply to all relevant questions posed by the parties;

(ii) in that case, reserve the costs.

The defendant contends that the Court should:

(i) dismiss the application brought by the applicant;

(ii) order the applicant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

The complaints upheld by the appointing authority

37 The disciplinary decision taken by the appointing authority and the reasoned opinion delivered by the Disciplinary Board make it clear that all the complaints upheld against the applicant may be grouped in three categories:

(a) the opening of an interest-bearing account with the Midland Bank, London, on 21 July 1981 with the amount of UK 400 000 bearing 16% annual interest without prior authorization, accounting entries relating to those operations or entries regarding interest in the Parliament' s accounts for 1980 and 1981. Those facts constitute a breach of Article 20 and the third subparagraph of Article 70(1) of the Financial Regulation, so far as the opening of the account is concerned, and of Article 63 of the Financial Regulation and of Articles 50 and 51 of Commission Regulation No 75/375/Euratom, ECSC, EEC of 30 June 1975 on measures of implementation of certain provisions of the Financial Regulation of 25 April 1973 (Official Journal 1975 L 170, p. 1) (hereinafter referred to as "the measures of implementation"), so far as concerns the absence of accounting measures (points 127 to 156 of the reasoned opinion and page 3 of the decision of the appointing authority);

(b) encashment on 4 September 1981 and 11 November 1981, without specific and valid justification, of two cheques drawn on the Midland Bank in the respective amounts of UK 17 189.15 and UK 35 176.98, which were paid in cash by the Sogenal Bank (Société Générale Alsacienne de Banque) in Luxembourg for the following amounts: BFR 2 700 000, DM 30 000 and FF 100 000. Failure to record those operations in the Parliament' s accounts during the 1981 financial year. Registration after a six-month delay (28 February 1982) on the accounts form in the members' cash office in the overall amount of BFR 4 136 125, although the withdrawal had been made in a number of currencies. Those facts constituted a failure to comply with the duty of proper administration of payment appropriations under the second paragraph of Article 20, Article 63, the second paragraph of Article 64 and the third subparagraph of Article 70(1) of the Financial Regulation (points 157 to 186 of the reasoned opinion and pages 4 and 5 of the decision of the appointing authority);

(c) failure to comply with the obligation imposed on the accounting officer to effect expenditure only on production of proper supporting documentation and to ensure the safeguarding of the Parliament' s assets. The absence of proper supporting documentation relates to a discrepancy between the physical assets of the members' cash office and the general accounts amounting to BFR 4 100 000 which appeared after the making of the entry of BFR 4 136 125 relating to the encashment of two cheques drawn on the Midland Bank. Those facts amounted to grave negligence on the part of the accounting officer of such a kind as to render him liable under the second subparagraph of Article 70(1) of the Financial Regulation (points 187 to 215 of the reasoned opinion and pages 5 and 6 of the decision of the appointing authority).

38 After confirming that it had carefully examined all the documents on the file, the opinion of the Disciplinary Board and the views of the applicant, the appointing authority took the view that, even under the most favourable interpretation of the facts possible, the applicant had committed serious breaches of the obligations imposed on the accounting officer of the Parliament and, more generally, on officials of the European Communities. After taking account of the extenuating circumstances accepted by the Disciplinary Board - which included the poor organization of the Parliament' s financial division at the time of the facts alleged - the appointing authority decided to impose the sanction of downgrading.

The background to the operation of bank accounts with the Midland Bank, London

39 The complaints upheld against the applicant relate to the operation of a bank account maintained by funds derived from the imprest account system designed for the payment of various allowances and for the reimbursement of travelling expenses of members of the Parliament. The facts relating to the operation of this bank account, as established in the opinion of the Court of Auditors of 7 November 1985 and the reasoned opinion of the Disciplinary Board (points 127 to 155), are set out below. The applicant does not dispute the accuracy of those facts.

40 On 16 May 1980, the Midland Bank, London, wrote to the Parliament to inform it that large balances then being held on its Current Account No 618094 might advantageously be placed on a deposit account and thereby earn interest.

41 By letter of 21 July 1980, signed by Mr Offermann, an administrator of advance funds and official in the Treasury and Accounts Division, and Ms Cesaratto, an official in the same division, an interest-bearing account (No 1777912) was opened with the bank and the sum of UK 400 000 was transferred to that account at an annual rate of interest of 16%.

42 According to the statements made by the applicant to the Disciplinary Board, he had been informed from the outset of this exchange of correspondence and of the decision to open an interest-bearing account. The sum of UK 400 000 remained immobilized for 13 months and no entry relating to those operations was made in the Parliament' s accounts.

43 In August 1981, that capital sum was transferred back again at the request of the accounting officer, Mr de Compte, and the administrator of advance funds, Mr Offermann, to Current Account No 618094. However, the interest of UK 50 347.59 which had accrued up to that period was retained in the interest-bearing account No 1777912. This interest also was not recorded in the Parliament' s accounts in 1980 or in 1981.

44 Account No 1777912 was credited with a new amount of UK 9 152.85 in respect of interest for the second half of 1981. This brought the total amount of interest, and consequently the balance of the account, to UK 59 500.44. No reference to this was made at the time in the Parliament' s accounts.

45 On 4 September 1981 and 11 November 1981, the Sogenal Bank, Luxembourg, paid in cash to Mr de Compte, on his instructions, the following amounts: BFR 2 700 000, DM 30 000 and FF 100 000. In return, Mr de Compte handed over two cheques drawn on the Midland Bank, London, in the amounts of UK 17 189.15 and UK 35 176.98 respectively.

46 The Midland Bank refused to cash those cheques against the interest-bearing account (No 1777912) on the ground that that account did not permit the issue of cheques and could therefore not be the subject of a direct withdrawal. The Midland Bank re-entered the number of the original current account (618094) and the two cheques were debited from that account. Neither of the two cheques, however, was recorded in the corresponding entries in the Parliament' s accounts during the 1981 financial year.

47 On Sunday 28 February 1982, the two cheques were recorded on the accounting form in the members' cash office as being in respect of the account with the Midland Bank for a total amount of BFR 4 136 125.

48 It would appear that on the same date, 28 February 1982, four "Treasury transaction" forms were drawn up for these two cheques but were predated to 16 September 1981 and to 26 November 1981.

49 In the interim period, on 24 February 1982, following a telephone call to the Midland Bank in London, UK 19 000 had been transferred from the interest-bearing account to the current account, thereby bringing the balance of the interest-bearing account to UK 40 500.44.

50 On 18 March 1982, the Court of Auditors carried out a check during which the entry relating to the BFR 4 136 125 was not found; this allowed its representative to state, when being heard before the Disciplinary Board on 23 October 1987, that the entry for 28 February 1982 had in fact been made subsequent to that check.

51 On 30 March 1982, Mr de Compte, in a letter to the President of the Parliament, acknowledged that he had failed to enter details of expenses in the amount of BFR 4 121 573.

52 In April 1982, in reply to a request addressed to it that it check the balances held on behalf of the Parliament, the Midland Bank informed the Court of Auditors of the existence of Account No 1777912.

53 Following the applicant' s transfer on 30 April 1982 and the issue of an instruction by the new accounting officer, the interest-bearing account was closed and the balance transferred on 20 May 1982 to the current account.

54 As a result of internal checks carried out by the financial division of the Parliament, a reverse entry was made on 31 August 1982 in the Parliament' s general accounts in respect of BFR 4 136 125.

The substance

55 In support of his application for annulment, the applicant first of all relies on eight pleas relating to formal defects and concerning the propriety of the disciplinary proceedings; these may be summarized as follows:

- the contested decision was taken outside the period laid down in the third paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX;

- the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after the expiry of the limitation period laid down in Article 72 of the Financial Regulation;

- the disciplinary proceedings were inadmissible in view of the final discharge granted to the applicant in respect of the 1981 financial year;

- the reopening of the disciplinary proceedings was in breach of the principle that such steps should be taken within a reasonable period;

- the disciplinary proceedings brought against the applicant were inadmissible by reason of the failure to comply with the non bis in idem rule set out in Article 86 of the Staff Regulations;

- the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by formal defects affecting the initial report and the minutes of 26 November 1987;

- the applicant' s rights of defence were infringed in several respects, in particular by reason of the failure to forward certain documents to him;

- the independence of the Disciplinary Board and the freedom of the defence were jeopardized by a number of statements made by the then Vice-President of the Parliament.

56 Secondly, the applicant relied in support of his claims on three pleas relating to substantive defects and concerning the soundness of the contested decision; these may be summarized as follows:

- breach of Article 86 of the Staff Regulations, breach of Articles 70 and 72 of the Financial Regulation, and failure to comply with the principle of law that every administrative measure must be based on legally admissible grounds which are not contradictory or vitiated for mistake of law or fact;

- in the alternative, breach of Article 86(1) of the Staff Regulations, breach of Articles 70(1) and 71 of the Financial Regulation, failure to comply with the principles of equality, fairness and distributive justice, and misuse of powers;

- breach of the principle of proportionality inasmuch as the sanction imposed was disproportionate to the seriousness of the complaints made against the applicant.

The pleas relating to formal defects

The plea relating to the failure to comply with the period prescribed by the third paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX

57 The applicant abandoned this plea in his reply.

The plea relating to the expiry of the limitation period

58 The applicant argues that the disciplinary procedure which resulted in the contested decision was initiated after the expiry of the limitation period laid down in Article 72 of the Financial Regulation, which provides that "each institution shall be allowed a period of two years from the date when the account for revenue and expenditure is submitted to take a decision on the final discharge to be given to accounting officers for the transactions relating thereto".

59 According to the applicant, on the expiry of that two-year period and in the absence of a final discharge previously granted or refused in express terms, an implied final discharge must be deemed to have been granted in law since the accounting officer cannot be the victim of a failure to act on the part of the administrative authorities. Article 37(2) of the Financial Regulation, which provides for the keeping of supporting documents pertaining to the accounts for a period of five years following the date of the decision giving discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget, referred to in Article 85, is not incompatible with this contention in view of the fact that this article attaches merely a subsequent obligation to the decision of discharge.

60 The applicant argues that the only possible significance of the implied final discharge is to recognize the correctness and accuracy of the accounts, something which implies the definitive discharge of a specific responsibility resting on the accounting officer, namely that relating to the formal correctness of the accounts. It follows from this minimum scope of the final discharge that any disciplinary proceedings giving rise to merely formal complaints must also be brought within a two-year period on pain of being out of time. Pursuant to Articles 73 and 77 of the Financial Regulation, this period begins to run no later than 31 May of the year following that of the financial year in question.

61 The applicant submits that the disciplinary proceedings in this case were initiated on 24 June 1987, that is to say, after the expiry of the two-year period in respect of his performance with regard to the 1981 financial year (period expiring on 31 May 1984 at the latest) and, alternatively, in respect of his performance with regard to the 1982 financial year (period expiring on 31 May 1985 at the latest) by reason of the fact that he was no longer acting as accounting officer after 30 April 1982. The applicant also points out that the proceedings initiated on 24 June 1987 cannot in any way be regarded as a reopening of earlier disciplinary proceedings in view of the fact that the first proceedings, brought on 30 September 1982, were discontinued and that the second proceedings, which were initiated on 13 April 1983, resulted in the decision of 24 May 1984, which in turn was set aside by the above judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 June 1985.

62 The applicant also refers to a possible connection between Articles 72 and 85 of the Financial Regulation and points out that the legislature did not provide for the possibility of extending the period laid down for the decision on final discharge, as was done for the decision on discharge under Article 85. Consequently, he argues, the period in Article 72 relating to final discharge must be treated as an absolute time-limit. In the opinion of the applicant, it should also be borne in mind that the period laid down in Article 85 expires more than one year before that provided for by Article 72.

63 In reply, the defendant argues that the provisions of the Staff Regulations do not in any case permit a connection to be established between the issue of final discharge and the disciplinary proceedings, a point which emerges clearly from the interim order of 3 July 1984 made in the same case. Limitation periods must be laid down by the legislature in express terms (judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 41/69 ACF Chemiefarma NV v Commission [1970] ECR 661, at paragraphs 18 to 20) and this is not the case with regard to Article 72 of the Financial Regulation.

64 Furthermore, by providing in Article 37(2) for the keeping of supporting documents for a period of five years, the Financial Regulation implicitly recognizes the possibility of initiating disciplinary proceedings over an extended period going beyond the two years provided for the final discharge. The legal effect of the final discharge is that, by granting it, the authority responsible for budgetary control declares that it does not have any objection with regard to the submission of the accounts. However, final discharge does not preclude the opening of disciplinary proceedings if ongoing investigations linked to other disciplinary proceedings bring to light new facts and, in particular, evidence of fraudulent activity.

65 The Parliament also argues that the decision on final discharge can only be explicit. The two-year period provided for in that regard by Article 72 of the Financial Regulation cannot be interpreted as a time limit at the conclusion of which the accounting officer benefits from an implied final discharge. The decision on final discharge can be made only after the decision on discharge in respect of implementation of the budget. As the period provided under Article 85 of the Financial Regulation for a vote of discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget is not a time-limit, this should also be the case with regard to the period laid down in Article 72 of that regulation.

66 On this point, the defendant institution points out that the disciplinary proceedings of 30 September 1982 and 13 April 1983 were in any event commenced prior to 31 May 1984 and that consequently the periods were complied with. Admittedly, following the judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 June 1985 setting aside the decision of the appointing authority of 24 May 1984, the disciplinary proceedings had to be restarted. Nevertheless, according to the institution, the opening of earlier disciplinary proceedings has had the effect of interrupting any possible period of limitation (judgments of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases 5, 7 and 13 to 24/66 Kampffmeyer and Others v Commission [1967] ECR 245 and in Case 11/72 Giordano v Commission [1973] ECR 417). Furthermore, the appointing authority was entitled to take a second decision identical to that set aside on grounds of formal defects, provided that it complied with the substantive forms which had originally been infringed (judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 108/81 Amylum v Council [1982] ECR 3107).

67 Furthermore, according to the Parliament, the applicant was never granted any implied final discharge, contrary to his assertions. The defendant provides the following details in this regard. The decision of 14 January 1983, by which the Parliament granted a final discharge to the applicant, related to the 1980 financial year and took no account of the complaints made against him. Although the Parliament, by decision of 10 April 1984, granted a final discharge to the applicant in respect of the 1981 financial year, it none the less referred in its reasoning to the problems concerning the disciplinary proceedings brought against the applicant in connection with the discharge for 1982. With regard to that discharge, the Parliament, in its decision of 11 July 1986, authorized its President to discharge its accounting officers responsible for the 1982 financial year, with the exception of the discrepancy of BFR 4 136 125 between the funds and the general accounts.

68 So far as this plea in law is concerned, the Court first of all notes that, in regulating the disciplinary system applicable to Community officials in Articles 86 to 89 and in Annex IX, the Staff Regulations do not provide for any limitation period with regard to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an official accused of having failed to fulfil one of his obligations under the Regulations. In order to fulfil its function of ensuring legal certainty, a limitation period must be fixed in advance by the Community legislature (see the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 41/69 ACF Chemiefarma NV v Commission, cited above). In the absence of an explicit limitation period in the title of the Staff Regulations dealing with disciplinary measures against officials, it cannot be accepted that the expiry of the period laid down by Article 72 of the Financial Regulation for delivery of a final discharge to an accounting officer can result in the barring of all disciplinary proceedings against the latter.

69 Secondly, it is necessary in this connection to bear in mind the principle that disciplinary proceedings are independent of other administrative proceedings. Disciplinary proceedings are designed to safeguard the internal order of the public service. On the other hand, the delivery of a final discharge, as provided for under Article 72 of the Financial Regulation, is designed to verify officially the accuracy and propriety of the accounts and, more generally, their presentation and auditing, in order that an end may be put to the uncertainty regarding the liability of the accounting officer concerned for a given financial year. It was from that perspective that the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of Justice drew a distinction between the two types of proceedings in his interim order of 3 July 1984 in this case. Consequently, the putative granting of an implied final discharge on the expiry of a two-year period cannot preclude the bringing of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.

70 Furthermore, it should be noted that, even if the applicant' s views were to be accepted on this point, this plea would still have to be dismissed on the ground that it is unfounded. The Parliament is correct in its submission that the disciplinary proceedings at issue were brought before 31 May 1984, the date on which the applicant fixes the delivery of the implied final discharge for the 1981 financial year. The disciplinary proceedings against the applicant must be treated as having been initiated, at the very latest, on 13 April 1983, the date on which the President of the Parliament submitted to the Disciplinary Board the report setting out the complaints which had been made against the applicant. Those disciplinary proceedings resulted in the appointing authority' s decision of 24 May 1984 downgrading the applicant. Following the annulment of that disciplinary decision by the judgment of the Court of 20 June 1985 for reasons of procedural defects, the President of the Parliament once again brought the matter before the Disciplinary Board on 24 June 1987, on the basis of the same report. Under those circumstances, the reopening of the disciplinary proceedings cannot be regarded as a fresh reference of the matter to the competent authorities, but must be seen as a resumption of the proceedings from the point at which the formal defect confirmed by the Court of Justice had arisen. For that purpose, the administration may, as a rule, resume administrative proceedings previously annulled by reason of a formal defect, provided that it complies this second time with the formal requirements previously overlooked.

71 It follows from all the above considerations that the plea in law based on the expiry of the limitation period supposedly laid down by Article 72 of the Financial Regulation must be dismissed as unfounded.

The plea in law relating to the delivery of the final discharge for the 1981 financial year

72 The applicant points out that, by its decision of 10 April 1984, the Parliament granted him a final discharge in respect of the 1981 financial year on the basis of the report drawn up on 21 March 1984 by the Committee on Budgetary Control. He argues that that decision per se renders the present disciplinary proceedings inadmissible and consequently null and void in view of the fact that the only complaints upheld against him relate exclusively to the formal propriety of the accounts.

73 In his application, the applicant also contends that the fact that the final discharge in respect of the 1982 financial year was granted subject to a reserve relating to what is the essential element of this case, namely the question of the BFR 4 000 000, is without relevance. He argues, primarily, that the question was settled by the "final discharge in respect of 1981"; in the alternative, he claims that he received final discharge for the 1982 financial year and, in the further alternative, that at the time of his transfer on 30 April 1982 and his replacement by a new accounting officer, no management accounts were presented, with the result that it was impossible for the appointing authority to establish, in respect of the 1982 financial year, the portion for which he was responsible and the portion which was the responsibility of the accounting officer who succeeded him.

74 In his reply, the applicant relies on two facts which he regards as essential, namely the decision of 18 May 1983 by which the Parliament discharged its President in respect of the 1981 financial year and the Parliament' s decision of 10 April 1984 referred to above. On the basis of those facts he argues first of all that the discharge granted by the Parliament to its President on 18 May 1983 implicitly includes the grant of a final discharge to the accounting officer; secondly, that such discharge cannot be partial; and thirdly, that the scope of a decision granting a final discharge cannot be restricted by virtue of a recital in the preamble to that decision. In the alternative, the applicant adds that in the event that the issue of the final discharge for 1982 should be relevant, he must be regarded as having secured that discharge. In that connection, he resumes his argument that the discharge which the Parliament granted its President (in this case, the Parliament' s decision of 11 July 1986 in respect of the 1982 financial year) also contains the grant of final discharge to the accounting officer.

75 The defendant rejects the applicant' s arguments, referring to the observations which it made with regard to the plea based on expiry of the limitation period, namely, that the applicant was consistently refused a final discharge on account of the acts which form the subject-matter of the disciplinary proceedings. It also notes that, even if the final discharge had been granted, that would in no way prevent disciplinary proceedings from being brought.

76 In its statement of rejoinder, it also expressed reservations concerning the admissibility of the pleas in law on which the applicant relied in his reply, namely, the correlation between the discharge granted by the Parliament to its President and the final discharge to be granted to the institution' s accounting officer, the indivisibility of the final discharge and the effect of a recital on the scope of a decision granting final discharge. The Parliament takes the view that these constitute three new pleas in law.

77 The Parliament is also of the opinion that these pleas are unfounded. It stresses that discharge and final discharge are subject to two separate procedures and that this fact, in its view, demonstrates by itself that the one is not to be regarded as covering the other. Discharge, it argues, is "necessary" but not "sufficient" for granting the final discharge and it is along this line that the practice of the institutions has developed. For the same reasons, Article 13 of the internal rules on the implementation of the Parliament' s budget provides only that discharge implies "authorization" to grant final discharge to the accounting officer, and not that it automatically signifies final discharge. Consequently the Parliament, by discharging its President while refusing to grant final discharge to the applicant, certainly did not intend to cover the latter' s responsibility. On this point, the Parliament, in reply to the written questions put by the Court, gave details of its rules of procedure and its administrative practices with regard to discharge in respect of the implementation of the institution' s budget (Article 85 of the Financial Regulation) and the final discharge to be given to accounting officers (Article 72).

78 It seems to the Court that, in his third plea in law, the applicant is essentially arguing that he obtained an explicit final discharge for the financial year 1981 and (in the alternative) for the financial year 1982 and that this renders the disciplinary proceedings brought against him inadmissible.

79 As has already been demonstrated in reply to the previous plea in law, the disciplinary proceedings provided for under the Staff Regulations are independent of the final discharge procedure laid down in the Financial Regulation. Consequently, even if the applicant had been granted a final discharge in respect of the 1981 financial year, that fact cannot preclude the institution of disciplinary proceedings against him, particularly since those proceedings were instituted on 13 April 1983, that is to say, prior to the adoption of the Parliament' s decisions of 18 May 1983 and 10 April 1984, which, in the applicant' s opinion, should be regarded as having granted him, expressly or implicitly, the final discharge for the 1981 financial year.

80 It should also be noted that, even if one were to accept the applicant' s views to the effect that delivery of final discharge prevents the bringing of disciplinary proceedings, this plea still cannot be accepted. In so far as the applicant relies (for the first time in his statement of reply) on the decision of 18 May 1983, by which the Parliament discharged its President, in support of his claim that that discharge automatically implies the grant of final discharge to the institution' s accounting officer, it must be pointed out (independently of the doubts concerning its admissibility) that this part of the plea is unfounded. In its decision of 18 May 1983, the Parliament expressly postponed "final discharge to the accounting officer to enable the Committee on Budgetary Control to effect certain work". Inasmuch as the applicant, in connection with the same plea in law, relies on the Parliament' s decision of 10 April 1984, this part of the plea is equally unfounded. In order to appreciate the scope of that decision, it is necessary to take account of its preamble; in particular, it follows from points G and I in the preamble to the decision that the Parliament reserved to itself the right to comment, in the context of the discharge for 1982, on the factors relating to the applicant' s responsibility, in connection with which the President of the Parliament had requested, by letter of 6 June 1983, postponement of the decision on final discharge in respect of the 1981 financial year.

81 In addition, it must be pointed out that the 1981 financial year cannot be regarded as the financial year relevant to an examination of the matters at issue. As is clear from the documents on the case file, the fact that no accounting entries, whether relating to payment or recovery, had been made throughout the 1981 financial year in respect of the sum of BFR 4 136 125 made it impossible, when checking operations at the end of the financial year, to determine whether there had been a surplus or a deficit. Consequently, it is the 1982 financial year which must be treated as relevant for the purposes of examining the applicant' s liability as accounting officer of the Parliament. While the Parliament, by its decision of 11 July 1986, authorized its President to discharge its accounting officers in respect of the 1982 financial year, it made that authorization subject to the express exclusion of "the sum of 91 263 ECU and the matters relating thereto" by reason precisely of the discrepancies confirmed in the intervening period between the balance on the members' cash office and the general accounts.

82 It follows that in any event this plea in law must also be dismissed.

The plea relating to the infringement of the principle requiring proceedings to be brought within a reasonable period

83 The applicant, who puts forward this plea as an alternative, in particular, to that based on the expiry of the limitation period, argues that, according to a generally recognized principle, he is entitled to take the view that disciplinary proceedings must be instituted within a reasonable period of time, after the facts relied on have become known, and that they must also be carried out within a reasonable period for reasons of legal certainty and proper administration.

84 In this connection, the applicant points out that disciplinary proceedings, as governed by the Staff Regulations, must normally be carried out within relatively short periods. In this case, they were initiated or carried out with an unreasonable delay. In support of this contention, he points out that the disciplinary proceedings were instituted (or, at least) reinstituted on 24 June 1987, whereas the relevant date was 31 December 1981 (conclusion of the 1981 budgetary year) or, in the alternative, 30 April 1982 (date of his transfer) or, in the further alternative, 20 June 1985 (date of the judgment of the Court of Justice annulling the disciplinary sanction of 24 May 1984).

85 In his statement of reply, the applicant sets out the facts which occurred since the accusations made against him in 1982 with a view to demonstrating that the five years which elapsed between the acts of which he stands accused and the institution of the final disciplinary proceedings exceed what can be described as a reasonable period. In this connection, he first relies on a breach of Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which he considers to be applicable to the present case by way of analogy. Secondly, he examines the arguments submitted by the defendant and infers from them that the defendant does not contest the principle that disciplinary proceedings must be brought and conducted within a reasonable period. He notes in this connection that the Parliament has disputed only the existence of a limitation period for the bringing of disciplinary proceedings and not the existence of a reasonable period, something which is a quite separate matter. He adds that the opinion of the Disciplinary Board refers to mitigating circumstances concerning the excessive length of time between the submission of the complaints by the appointing authority and the completion of the disciplinary proceedings. By accepting that opinion, the appointing authority thus acknowledged the existence of an unreasonable delay which could not be attributable to the applicant. Thirdly, with regard to the actual arguments of the defendant institution, the applicant takes the view that the only relevant discussion relates to the 18-month period between 20 June 1985, the date on which the Court delivered its judgment, and 9 December 1986, the date of the letter by which the appointing authority intimated to him that it intended to reopen the disciplinary proceedings and asked him to comment on the report setting out the complaints made against him which had originally been submitted to the Disciplinary Board on 13 April 1983.

86 For its part, the defendant repeats that the Staff Regulations do not lay down any limitation period within which disciplinary proceedings must be brought. In any event, it does not believe that it can be blamed for having failed to demonstrate sufficient diligence in conducting the disciplinary proceedings brought against the applicant, particularly if account is taken of the extremely complex nature of the facts requiring to be established and the seriousness of the charges brought against the applicant. According to the Parliament, the long chronological list of facts, which it sets out in detail, shows that this argument is correct. It also argues that the length of time required for the preparatory inquiries can be explained by the numerous points raised by the applicant and his legal advisers throughout the disciplinary proceedings, as well as by the range of judicial proceedings to which this case has given rise, that is to say, five interim orders and one judgment. Finally, the defendant points out that the applicant himself considerably reduces the scope of his complaint by declaring that the only issue relevant to this case concerns the two-year period following the delivery of the Court' s judgment on 20 June 1985 and by admitting that, during this period, he was personally responsible for a delay of six months. The question was therefore whether or not the remaining 18-month period could be justified.

87 So far as this 18-month period in particular is concerned, the defendant argues that, in view of the observations of the President of the Third Chamber in his interim order of 3 July 1984, the appointing authority did not consider it opportune to reopen immediately the disciplinary proceedings and preferred to await the adoption by the Parliament of the decision on final discharge for the 1982 financial year. The defendant institution points out in this connection that at the date on which the Court of Justice delivered its judgment (20 June 1985), the Committee on Budgetary Control had already begun the process on 18 June 1985 with regard to this final discharge. The President of the Parliament, following a request submitted to this end by the Committee on Budgetary Control, also requested, by letter of 24 July 1985, a fresh opinion from the Court of Auditors on the most appropriate way to clear the deficit recorded in the Members' cash office for the 1982 financial year. The appointing authority claims that it waited for the opinion of the Court of Auditors (delivered on 7 November 1985) and thereafter the decision of the Parliament of 11 July 1986 on final discharge for the 1982 financial year before reopening the disciplinary proceedings. While the defendant denies that a final discharge can constitute a barrier to disciplinary proceedings, it believes that the detailed examination by the Parliament' s Committee on Budgetary Control of the applicant' s handling of the accounts could cast new light on the case. From this the defendant concludes that this ground, concerning the interest of the applicant alone, constitutes valid justification for the period of 18 months which elapsed between the judgment annulling the disciplinary proceedings and their reopening. GROUNDS CONTINUED UNDER DOC.NUM : 689A0026.1

88 With regard to this plea in law, it should be noted that while the Staff Regulations do not lay down a limitation period within which disciplinary proceedings must be initiated, Annex IX, and in particular Article 7 thereof, gives the Disciplinary Board a period of one month (extended to three months where there is an inquiry) within which to deliver its reasoned opinion, and confers on the appointing authority a similar period within which to take its decision. Although those time-limits are not mandatory, they do constitute rules of sound administration the purpose of which is to avoid, in the interests both of the administration and of officials, unjustified delay in adopting the decision terminating the disciplinary proceedings (see the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case 13/69 Van Eick v Commission [1970] ECR 3; Case 228/83 F. v Commission [1985] ECR 275; and Joined Cases 175 and 209/86 M. v Council [1988] ECR 1891). It follows from the importance attached by the Community legislature to sound administration that disciplinary authorities are under an obligation to conduct disciplinary proceedings with due diligence and to ensure that each procedural step is taken within a reasonable period following the previous step. Failure to comply with that period (which can be assessed only in the light of the specific circumstances of the case) may not only render the institution liable, but may also result in the measure adopted after the expiry of the period being declared void.

89 In this case, an examination of the successive steps taken in the proceedings against the applicant from 13 April 1983 (the chronological sequence of which is set out above in the section on "Facts and procedure") shows that the disciplinary proceedings followed in principle the normal course. However, after subtracting the time spent by the applicant in preparing his defence before the Court of Justice, it must be stated that the question whether a reasonable period was complied with may arise twice. The first concerns the eight-month period during which the matter was before the first Disciplinary Board (from 2 June 1983 to 10 February 1984); the second relates to the period of 18 months between delivery of the judgment of the Court of Justice annulling the proceedings and dispatch of the letter from the President of the Parliament requesting the applicant to submit his observations pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 87 of the Staff Regulations (period from 20 June 1985 to 9 December 1986).

90 As the Parliament submitted in its statement of defence (pages 26 to 30), and as is also apparent from the reasoned opinion of the first Disciplinary Board of 10 February 1984 (points 6 to 20), the duration of the latter' s proceedings was attributable to the applicant' s cumulative absences of four months on medical grounds and to the fact that an inquiry had to be organized at which representatives of all parties could be heard. Under those circumstances, the eight-month period taken by the first Disciplinary Board to deliver its reasoned opinion did not go beyond the limits of what was reasonable.

91 With regard to the 18-month period between the judgment of the Court of Justice annulling the proceedings and the reopening of the disciplinary proceedings, the defendant claimed that the appointing authority had to await the outcome of the Parliamentary proceedings, already started, on the final discharge for the 1982 financial year. Before examining this ground, it is appropriate to set out some of the special circumstances surrounding the origin of this case.

92 As already mentioned, the Court of Auditors drew up a special report in July 1982 on the operation of the members' cash office and reached the conclusion that there had been serious breaches of the Financial Regulation. These irregularities were confirmed in a report compiled by an independent audit office which established that a "hole" of approximately BFR 4 000 000 had been "dug" over the previous number of years. It should be added that the opening of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant gave rise to animated reactions and heated discussions within the Parliament, which were reported in the international press and created the impression that a major scandal had been uncovered. For his part, the applicant claimed that he had been a victim of circumstances in respect of administration, equipment and personnel, and he accused his hierarchical superiors of being solely responsible for the irregularities uncovered. Under those circumstances, the relevant departments of the Parliament were initially non-committal with regard to the applicant' s liability. Following the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control, the Assembly, in its decision granting final discharge to the accounting officer of the institution for the 1981 financial year, reserved the right to examine the issue of the deficit in the context of the discharge for 1982. The Disciplinary Board took the view that the applicant had been justifiably accused by the appointing authority of a series of gravely negligent acts in the exercise of his functions, but that extenuating circumstances, relating in particular to the poor overall organization of the division in which he worked, meant that he could not be held solely liable. A majority on the Disciplinary Board proposed that he be reprimanded, while the minority was in favour of an absolute discharge. The appointing authority finally decided to remove him from his post. In his interim order of 3 July 1984 by which the operation of the first disciplinary sanction was suspended, the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of Justice accepted that the final discharge procedure was different from the disciplinary procedure but pointed out that the appraisal by the Committee on Budgetary Control of the applicant' s responsibility differed considerably from that of the appointing authority. In the parallel application for annulment which he had brought against the disciplinary decision, the applicant also submitted as a plea in law the fact that the Disciplinary Board had refused to stay its proceedings until the Committee on Budgetary Control had reached a decision. The President of the Parliament, in his capacity as the appointing authority, thus found himself faced with not only a file of exceptional technical complexity, but also with a highly controversial and sensitive case on which the Assembly had not yet commented in the context of the final discharge procedure. In addition, account must be taken of the special position of the appointing authority in this case (which is without parallel in any of the other Community institutions), that is to say, the fact that the President of the Parliament, assuming the simultaneous responsibilities of the appointing authority and presidency of the assembly, had to give a ruling on a question, the substance of which also required to be examined by the assembly, albeit in a different context.

93 In the light of the matters of fact and law just outlined, it must be accepted that the complexity of the case and its sensitivity with regard to the prestige of the Parliament, the particular position of the appointing authority within that institution, the comments in the order of the Court of Justice of 3 July 1984 on the conclusions arrived at by the Parliamentary Committee on Budgetary Control, along with the ambiguity as to the scope and apportionment of responsibilities among the officials and staff incriminated, together constitute special circumstances which in this case justify the appointing authority' s decision to await the outcome of the Parliamentary procedure concerning the final discharge for the 1982 financial year before reopening the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. Contrary to the latter' s contentions, this assessment is not incompatible with the principle that disciplinary proceedings are independent of and separate from the final discharge procedure. Although, in view of their separation, the issue of final discharge does not formally preclude the introduction of disciplinary proceedings against the official in question, that principle cannot mean that no substantive account can be taken, in the context of the disciplinary proceedings, of findings made and conclusions reached in the decision on final discharge. Consequently, it must be held that the period of 18 months which elapsed prior to the reopening of the disciplinary proceedings did not exceed the limits of a reasonable period.

94 So far as concerns the application by analogy of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights relied on by the applicant in his statement of reply, it should be pointed out that, in so far as that provision was referred to as a new argument intended to support the present plea concerning breach of the principle of reasonable delay, it is not necessary to provide a specific reply to it in view of the above considerations. On the other hand, if the applicant intended to base on a breach of this provision a plea independent of that based on breach of the principle requiring procceedings to be brought within a reasonable period that plea would have to be rejected on several grounds. In the first place, it would be inadmissible by virtue of the fact that it would be submitted during the proceedings, or, more precisely, for the first time at the stage of the statement of reply. Secondly, it is unfounded in law. In this connection, it suffices to note that Article 6 of the Convention does not apply to what are strictly disciplinary matters within the public service. The European Commission provided for by the Convention has dismissed as inadmissible several applications requesting that Article 6 be applied in the case of disciplinary proceedings on the ground that such proceedings do not come within the scope of "penal proceedings" referred to in that article (decisions of 8 March 1976 in Application No 7374/76 X v Denmark, D.R. 5, p. 157, and of 8 October 1980 in Application No 8496/79 X v United Kingdom, D.R. 21, p. 168).

95 It follows from the above considerations that it is necessary to dismiss the plea in law based on breach of the principle that proceedings must be instituted within a reasonable period.

The plea relating to the failure to comply with the "non bis in idem" rule

96 The applicant argues that the decision to transfer him on 30 April 1982 amounts to a disciplinary sanction and was adopted in breach of Article 86(3) of the Staff Regulations, which provides for the application of the non bis in idem rule to disciplinary matters. The applicant claims that that article was also breached through the previous refusal of the administration to promote him to Grade A 2 on an ad personam basis.

97 In the applicant' s opinion, the fact that that transfer does not feature in the list of disciplinary sanctions and that it is not, in principle, a disciplinary sanction is not decisive, given that it may conceal a sanction where it is of a disciplinary nature. Moreover, the appointing authority acknowledged as much in a circular distributed to members of the Assembly during the Parliament' s plenary session in July 1982. Likewise, the applicant' s agreement to his transfer is irrelevant in view of the fact that acceptance of a disciplinary sanction cannot affect the nature of the measure.

98 Furthermore, in so far as promotion ad personam to Grade A 2 was refused him, the applicant argues that the relevant decision did not lie within the discretionary power of the appointing authority, but came rather within a limited competence in view of the general rules with which that authority must comply, that is to say, objective conditions relating to age and seniority in grade and service which the applicant has satisfied since 1986. Moreover, promotion ad personam does not require that a post be available.

99 The defendant rejects the applicant' s contentions, arguing that transfer of an official in the interests of the service cannot be the subject of a complaint and that, in any event, it comes within the discretionary power of the administration. In addition, the decision in question was in response to a request by the applicant and amounted to a precautionary measure which the applicant did not contest at the time. The Parliament also notes that transfer is not included in the exhaustive list of disciplinary measures set out in Article 86 of the Staff Regulations. In any event, the Parliament points out that, according to the decision of the Court of Justice in Case 14/68 Wilhelm and Others v Bundeskartellamt [1969] ECR 1, the non bis in idem rule does not exclude the admissibility of two sets of parallel proceedings involving sanctions but pursuing different ends.

100 With regard to the failure to promote the applicant ad personam, the Parliament argues that this right lies a fortiori within the exclusive discretion of the appointing authority and presupposes that a post is available. Apart from the fact that the applicant did not make any formal application for promotion, the defendant relies on the Court' s decision in Case 27/63 Raponi v Commission [1964] ECR 129 in stressing the wide discretionary powers which the appointing authority enjoys in this area.

101 The Court first of all notes that neither transfer nor refusal of promotion features in the disciplinary measures listed in Article 86(2) of the Staff Regulations, while Article 86(3) sets out the rule that "a single offence shall not give rise to more than one disciplinary measure".

102 In addition, Article 7 of the Staff Regulations makes it clear that a transfer represents an ordinary movement in the career of an official which may occur ex officio solely in the interest of the service, or on application by the official concerned. According to well-established case-law, transfer in the interests of the service falls in principle within the discretionary powers of the administration to arrange its departments (judgment of the Court in Joined Cases 18 and 35/65 Gutmann v Commission of the EAEC [1966] ECR 103).

103 In the present case, the decision to transfer the applicant on 30 April 1982 from the Treasury and Accounts Division, of which he was in charge, to a different department was taken in order to facilitate the conduct of ongoing investigations designed to examine the irregularities which the Court of Auditors had identified in the accounting of the members' cash office. That step was therefore taken for reasons connected with the interests of the service and, contrary to the applicant' s assertion, did not constitute a disguised disciplinary measure. It should be added that an examination of the circular addressed by the President of the Parliament to the members of the Assembly in July 1982 does not in any respect alter the assessment of the nature of that measure to which, moreover, the applicant had given his consent.

104 With regard to the promotion ad personam which the applicant believes was unjustly withheld from him, it suffices to note that the applicant at no point stated whether he had submitted an application to the appointing authority requesting it to adopt a decision in that regard or whether he had ever received an express or implied decision rejecting such an application. Under those circumstances, that complaint cannot be upheld as it is unsupported by any factual details.

105 The plea in law based on a failure to comply with the non bis in idem rule must therefore be dismissed as unfounded.

The plea relating to formal defects vitiating the disciplinary proceedings

The absence of a signature and date on the report addressed by the appointing authority to the Disciplinary Board

106 The applicant claims that the fact that the report initiating the disciplinary proceedings was neither dated nor signed constitutes a formal defect with regard to the first paragraph of Article 1 of Annex IX of the Staff Regulations and that the report must for that reason be treated as a nullity, with the result that the entire proceedings and the decision taken at their conclusion must be regarded as null and void. Moreover, the existing defect cannot be corrected by the fact that the letter transferring the report was dated and signed by the appointing authority.

107 In reply, the defendant argues that the signature on the letter of transfer demonstrates clearly that the appointing authority had adopted the contents of the report, the conclusion of which in any case featured the date of 12 April 1983 and the name of the President.

108 Article 1 of Annex IX provides that "a report shall be submitted to the Disciplinary Board by the appointing authority, stating clearly the facts complained of and, where appropriate, the circumstances in which they arose. The report shall be communicated to the chairman of the Disciplinary Board, who shall bring it to the attention of the members of the Board and of the official charged".

109 An examination of the documents on the case file make it clear that the President of the Parliament, in his capacity as the appointing authority, submitted to the Disciplinary Board on 13 April 1983 a letter to which was annexed the report setting out the complaints made against the applicant dated 12 April 1983. Following the annulment by the Court of Justice of the disciplinary measure adopted on 16 March 1984, the President of the Parliament brought the matter before the Disciplinary Board by a properly signed letter of 24 June 1987. In that letter, which was addressed to the chairman of the Disciplinary Board, the appointing authority briefly set out the background to the case and stated that it had requested the applicant, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 87 of the Staff Regulations, to comment on the "report which President Dankert had submitted to the Disciplinary Board on 13 April 1983", on the opinion of the Court of Auditors of 7 November 1985 and on the Parliament' s decision on discharge in respect of the 1982 financial year, all those being the documents which constituted the disciplinary file. The appointing authority also stated in that letter that, after hearing the applicant, it had decided to reopen the disciplinary proceedings against him and "to submit once again to the Disciplinary Board the report drawn up on 12 April 1983 concerning the complaints made against Mr de Compte". Finally, the appointing authority requested the chairman of the Disciplinary Board to convene the Board and to communicate to its members and to the official charged the disciplinary file annexed to that letter. Point A on the list of annexes refers to the "report of 12 April 1983 on the complaints made against Mr de Compte".

110 In those circumstances, the letter of 24 June 1987, signed by the appointing authority, and the annexed report must be regarded as forming a single document which leaves no doubt as to its contents, its date and the originating authority. That document was a proper vehicle for the submission of the matter to the Disciplinary Board, in accordance with Article 1 of Annex IX. The applicant' s arguments to the contrary must for that reason be dismissed as unfounded.

The approval of the minutes of the meeting of 26 November 1987 following which the reasoned opinion was issued

111 The applicant also claims that the reasoned opinion delivered by the Disciplinary Board on 27 November 1987 was formally defective in so far as the minutes of the meeting of 26 November 1987 bear the date of 30 November 1987 and were thus drawn up after the delivery of the reasoned opinion and consequently at a date on which the Board no longer had jurisdiction in the matter. In the applicant' s view, this defect renders void the entire disciplinary proceedings as well as the decision taken by the appointing authority on the basis of the reasoned opinion.

112 The defendant points out that there is no rule which obliges the Disciplinary Board to base the reasoning of its opinions on the minutes of the meetings; rather, it must base its opinions on the documents submitted to it, bearing in mind the statements made by the person concerned and by witnesses, as well as the results of the investigation. So far as the minutes in question are concerned, they are purely internal in nature and for that reason did not require to be submitted to the applicant for his signature. The Parliament relies in this connection on the distinction, clearly established in case-law, between minutes of this kind and minutes recording the depositions of witnesses, which the latter must approve and sign and which thus are clearly of interest to the parties (judgment in Case 228/83 F. v Commission, cited above).

113 It is apparent from the documents on the case file that the Disciplinary Board met on the morning of 26 November in the presence of the applicant and his defence counsel. During that meeting, the Board approved the minutes of the previous meeting, took note of a declaration by its chairman concerning the production of certain documents by the appointing authority, and made inquiries as to the applicant' s examination of the original of a document. The members of the Board then discussed with the applicant' s defence counsel his statement of defence, and a decision was taken that the Board should reconvene in camera in the afternoon of the same day and all day Friday 27 November 1987. The minutes of that meeting were approved on Monday 30 November and communicated to the applicant on the same day.

114 In those circumstances, it must be held that the objection that the reasoned opinion is procedurally defective on the ground that the minutes were approved after the conclusion of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Board is unfounded. The legality of the reasoned opinion cannot be placed in question simply because the minutes of the meeting of 26 November 1987 were approved at a later date. Although the first paragraph of Article 9 of Annex IX provides that "the secretary shall keep minutes of meetings of the Disciplinary Board", it in no way requires that minutes must be signed immediately after the meeting of the Board in order for them to be valid.

115 It follows from the foregoing that this plea in law must be dismissed in its entirety.

The plea relating to infringement of the rights of the defence

The failure to forward certain documents

116 According to the applicant, the administration was unable to provide him in good time with a large number of documents which he had requested and which he judged to be necessary for his defence, as his counsel had already complained in the letter sent on 20 November 1987 to the chairman of the Disciplinary Board.

117 In his reply, however, the applicant states that this is a specific complaint ancillary to the serious infringements of the rights of the defence resulting in general from facts such as his transfer on 30 April 1982 and the refusal to allow him free access to the accounts. In those circumstances, according to the applicant, the onus is on the institution to establish the failures alleged as he, the applicant, is physically unable to identify the documents necessary for his defence. He adds that this problem would never have arisen if he had been given free access to the accounts in order to prepare his defence.

118 To this the defendant replies that the Disciplinary Board responded favourably and systematically to all of the applicant' s requests for documents. It refers in this connection to a letter of 17 August 1987 from the Secretary-General of the Parliament, in which the latter agreed in principle that the applicant should have access to all documents on the file, and also to a letter of 10 September 1987 in which the chairman of the Disciplinary Board suggested to the applicant' s defence counsel that the various documents, perusal of which might be useful, should be produced on request by the defence according to the stage reached by the Disciplinary Board in its examination of the file. The terms of that letter were not contested by the applicant' s counsel when he read it in the course of the meeting of 9 October 1987, and subsequently reference was made each time to the requests submitted and the replies made, with full agreement on the part of the defence. Thus, the applicant' s counsel was asked to explain a number of requests for documents which the appointing authority appeared to have difficulty in identifying. The appointing authority then reserved the right to accept or reject requests for documents not yet submitted to it. Nevertheless, the letter of 20 November 1987 from the applicant' s counsel did not provide any additional details. In this connection, formal notice was served on the applicant. This measure was not contested by the defence, which had in any event confirmed, during the meeting of 26 November 1987, that it did not require any additional documents.

119 In its statement of rejoinder, the defendant also raises an objection of inadmissibility under Article 42(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, arguing that the "general complaints" made by the applicant in his reply concerning his transfer of 30 April 1982 and the alleged refusal to grant him free access to the accounts represent two new pleas in law. In any case, the Parliament considers these pleas to be unfounded. With regard to the applicant' s transfer, it points out that the applicant had himself requested such a transfer. Turning to the applicant' s allegation that he was refused free access to the accounts, the Parliament notes that the sole purpose of the letter to which the applicant referred in this connection (a letter of 7 December 1984 from the appointing authority) was to ask the applicant to explain why he wished to obtain specific documents relating to a period when he was not working. In addition, according to the Parliament, the applicant had never submitted such a request in such general terms. The applicant' s counsel merely requested, in a letter of 16 June 1987, that all documents useful to the defence should be communicated to him on request. The Parliament adds that, if the appointing authority is not required to communicate the entire file to an official against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated unless requested to do so (judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases 255 and 256/83 R. v Commission [1985] ECR 2473, at paragraph 18), it is a fortiori under no obligation to communicate documents which do not form part of the file. Finally, the Court' s judgment in Case 35/67 Van Eick v Commission, cited above, makes it clear that a request for communication of documents must indicate accurately the documents required and must show that they are relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings.

120 Article 2 of Annex IX provides that "on receipt of the report, the official charged shall have the right to see his complete personal file and to take copies of all documents relevant to the proceedings".

121 Furthermore, the first paragraph of Article 7 of the annex states that "after consideration of the documents submitted and having regard to any statements made orally or in writing by the official concerned and by witnesses, and also to the results of any inquiry undertaken, the Disciplinary Board shall, by majority vote, deliver a reasoned opinion ...".

122 In the light of those provisions, the official charged and his advisers are entitled to be informed of all the facts on which a decision has been based in sufficient time to submit their observations (judgment in Case 228/83 F. v Commission, cited above, at paragraph 23). However, in the absence of a request to that effect, no obligation on the part of the appointing authority to communicate the complete file to an official against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated can be inferred from the Staff Regulations (judgment in Joined Cases 255 and 256/83 R. v Commission, cited above, at paragraphs 17 and 18).

123 The defendant in this case argues (and the truth of its allegation is confirmed by the documents on the file) that the appointing authority and the chairman of the Disciplinary Board both allowed the applicant and his defence counsel access to the entire file and to request the production of documents corresponding to the stage of examination of the file by the Disciplinary Board (see paragraphs 16 and 17 of the reasoned opinion, the letter of 26 June 1987 from the President of the Parliament to the applicant, and the letter of 17 August 1987 from the Secretary-General of the Parliament to the applicant' s defence counsel).

124 The applicant does not appear to question the implementation of that principle. None the less, he takes the view that the appointing authority was unable to provide him with a number of supporting documents, which he fails to specify in his application or in his reply and which apparently relate to the management of the accounts. On this point, the minutes of the meeting of the Disciplinary Board on 26 November 1987 record that the appointing authority was unable to identify a number of documents and that the applicant' s defence counsel reserved the right to re-examine, up to 23 November 1987, the advisability of requesting communication of the unidentified documents. Those same minutes also record that the applicant' s defence counsel expressly declared that "he did not need to have additional documents at his disposal", even though he added at the same time that he did not accept the appointing authority' s argument that it had been impossible to identify the documents. Under those circumstances, the Court takes the view that the applicant has failed to prove that his allegation, to the effect that the administration unjustifiably refused to communicate certain documents to him, is properly founded.

125 The applicant added in his reply that the problem of identifying the documents requested would never have arisen if he had not been refused free access to the accounts from the date of his transfer on 30 April 1982. In so far as this argument must be interpreted as a new plea in law, it must be declared inadmissible, as the defendant has quite correctly argued, under Article 42(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. To the extent to which it ought to be regarded as a development of an plea explicitly or implicitly set out earlier in the application, it suffices to hold, without its being necessary to consider whether the administration is obliged to grant free access to its archives to officials who are the subject of disciplinary proceedings, that the documents on the file show that the administration in this case did indeed initially grant the applicant access to its archives (see point 66 of the Disciplinary Board' s first reasoned opinion of 10 February 1984).

126 It follows that the first complaint relied on in support of this plea must be dismissed as unfounded.

The failure to forward the minutes of 26 November 1987 within a reasonable period

127 The applicant argues that the minutes of the Disciplinary Board' s final meeting of 26 November 1987 were not sent to him until 30 November 1987 and that he received them only on 2 December 1987 together with the Board' s reasoned opinion dated 27 November 1987. Consequently, he claims, there was no opportunity to submit observations on those minutes, even though they could not have been regarded as a purely internal document in view of the fact that they contained matters relevant to the applicant' s defence. Moreover, the statement in those minutes to the effect that the applicant' s counsel would not insist on securing other documents would, by its very nature, have been capable of being the subject of observations or development.

128 While it acknowledges that a meeting was indeed held on 26 November 1987, the defendant points out that this meeting was followed by two others held in camera, the second of which lasted throughout Friday 27 November 1987. In those circumstances, it would not have been possible to send the minutes out earlier than Monday 30 November 1987 and the applicant did not comment on this matter following receipt of those minutes. In any event, the minutes were purely formal in nature and were not relevant for the purposes of the final decision of the Disciplinary Board; the delay in forwarding them, according to the case-law, could therefore not have infringed the audi alteram partem principle (judgment in Case 228/83 F. v Commission, cited above). The Parliament also points out that, although the applicant argues that there was a delay in forwarding the minutes, the fact remains that he does not deny that his counsel admitted explicitly during that meeting that he did not wish to receive additional documents.

129 As the Court of Justice has held (paragraphs 25 to 28 of the judgment in F. v Commission), the minutes of the meetings of the Board, which give only a brief summary of the Board' s deliberations, are of a purely internal nature, and consequently the delay in forwarding them does not infringe the audi alteram partem principle applicable in proceedings before the Disciplinary Board or the rights of defence of the official accused.

130 In view of the fact that this case concerns simply the minutes of the meeting, without any record of the depositions of witnesses, it must be held that the delay in communication to the applicant did not infringe the rights of the defence.

131 The complaint based on delay in that communication must for that reason be dismissed.

The applicant' s non-approval of the technical questionnaire addressed to the Treasury and Accounts Division of the Parliament

132 The applicant contends that the chairman of the Disciplinary Board failed to submit to the applicant' s defence counsel, for his approval and prior to dispatch, the final text of the questions to be put to the administration, as had been agreed at the meeting of 10 November 1987.

133 The defendant states in reply that the final text of the questions was submitted to the applicant' s counsel on the afternoon of 10 November 1987, as evidenced by the letter sent to him on 11 November 1987 by the chairman of the Disciplinary Board. Those questions were also sent to the administration, at the request of the defence, during the meeting of 10 November 1987. The texts of the various questions were derived, almost verbatim, from the questions which appeared in the preliminary statement of defence of 29 October 1987. In addition, the present argument was at no time put forward during the subsequent proceedings of the Disciplinary Board.

134 The Court finds that this objection is based on an inaccurate assertion by the applicant. It is clear from an examination of the documents on the file, in particular the letter of 11 November 1987 from the chairman of the Disciplinary Board, which was produced by the defendant and the content of which has not been contested by the applicant, as well as paragraph 11 of the Disciplinary Board' s reasoned opinion of 27 November 1987, the content of which has also not been contested by the applicant, that the latter' s defence counsel expressed his agreement with the wording, prior to their dispatch, of the technical questions which the Disciplinary Board, following a proposal from the defence, had decided to send to the Treasury and Accounts Division.

135 It follows that this objection must also be dismissed.

The note sent by the applicant on 5 June 1981 to the Director of Finance and Data-processing

136 The applicant argues that the Disciplinary Board, in its reasoned opinion, attached major importance, for the purpose of "establishing liability" with regard to the complaint entitled "opening of an account with the Midland Bank on 21 July 1980", to a note which the applicant had addressed on 5 June 1981 to the director of finance and data-processing services. This document, he claims, was not attached to the "document making the accusation", was not referred to during the discussions before the Disciplinary Board and was not communicated to the applicant.

137 The defendant accepts that the note of 5 June 1981 was not attached to the "document making the accusation", but argues that this omission was attributable to the need for conciseness in that document. On the other hand, according to the Parliament, it was referred to at several stages in the proceedings of the Disciplinary Board and in the presence of the applicant, who did not deny that he wrote it. This document was also included in the annexes attached to the Disciplinary Board' s opinion in the disciplinary proceedings instituted against Mr Offermann, an opinion which the applicant had expressly requested should be placed on the file. The applicant could therefore have had access to this document at all times.

138 This plea in law must be dismissed, without its being necessary to examine whether and to what extent the note in question was communicated to the applicant. The applicant cannot claim that there was a failure to respect the rights of the defence on the ground that a note which he admits he wrote and the content and interpretation of which he does not dispute was not included in the file for the disciplinary proceedings.

The reverse entry of 25 August 1982 relating to the amount of BFR 4 136 125

139 The applicant claims that up to the day before the expiry of the first disciplinary proceedings the only document forwarded to him concerning the reverse entry of BFR 4 136 125 made on 25 August 1982 was a document which had not been signed by the accounting officer. It was not until a number of days after the termination of those disciplinary proceedings that a document signed by Mr de Compte' s successor, Mr Brown, appeared as an annex to the replies to questions put to Messrs Young and de Poortere by the Disciplinary Board. The applicant notes in this connection that there are several discrepancies between the two documents, quite apart from the fact that the first was not signed by the accounting officer, whereas the second was. According to the applicant, there are a number of mistakes and inconsistencies between the two texts, as well as discrepancies between the printed characters, all of which would suggest that the two documents were not contemporaneous, even though they bear the same date (25 August 1982).

140 The applicant also claims that the delay in forwarding the minutes of the Disciplinary Board' s meeting of 26 November 1987 prevented him from submitting observations on the reference in those minutes to the examination on 19 November 1987 of the original of the reverse entry made on 25 August 1982. Considering finally the Parliament' s suggestion that the copy in his possession was an unsigned draft of an accounting form, the applicant argues that, while such a possibility may explain some of the discrepancies identified, it cannot explain the difference in the printed characters of two documents bearing the same date. He justifies the importance he attaches to this question by stating that the reverse e