Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Officials Disciplinary measures Penalty Suspension of an official pursuant to Article 88 of the Staff Regulations Conditions

(Staff Regulations, Arts 25 and 88, first para.)

2. Officials Disciplinary measures Publication without first seeking permission Assessment by the appointing authority as regards both Article 17 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 11 and 12 of those Staff Regulations Difference

(Staff Regulations, Arts 11, 12, 17 and 88)

3. Officials Disciplinary measures Disciplinary proceedings Judicial review Appeal Whether the Court of Justice may review the appraisal of the evidence produced to the Court of First Instance Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted Equal treatment of officials Scope

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51; Staff Regulations, Art. 17, Annex IX)

Summary

1. It is clear from the first paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations that the only condition to be fulfilled before the appointing authority can suspend an official from his duties pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings against him is that an allegation of serious misconduct has been made against him.

Consequently, the Court of First Instance may take the view that a decision suspending an official who is subject to disciplinary proceedings contains, in accordance with Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, an adequate statement of the reasons on which it was based as regards the seriousness of the misconduct allegedly committed by that official. The appointing authority is under no obligation to give, in addition to that statement, any explanation of the reasons for which the immediate suspension of the person concerned is necessary nor, a fortiori, is the Court of First Instance required to verify the existence and validity of those reasons.

( see paras 26, 28-29 )

2. The mere fact that an official issues a publication concerned with the work of the Communities, without first seeking the permission of the appointing authority, constitutes an infringement of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations, which can be the subject of a simple finding of fact.

In contrast, substantiation of an infringement of Article 11 or 12 of the Staff Regulations calls for an assessment of factual circumstances which cannot be made, or at least cannot be finalised, when a decision is taken under Article 88 of the Staff Regulations.

( see para. 37 )

3. Provided that the evidence has been properly obtained and the general principles of law and the rules of procedure in relation to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have been observed, it is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value which should be attached to the evidence produced to it. That appraisal does not therefore constitute, save where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted, a point of law which is subject as such to review by the Court of Justice.

Where an official, faced with disciplinary proceedings for publishing without prior permission, has produced no indication or information to identify another similar case which he alleges was treated differently by the institution concerned, the Court of First Instance cannot be criticised for not asking that institution to give an account of its practice in this respect and to prove that it had not exceeded its powers or infringed the principle of equal treatment of officials.

In any event, the principle of equal treatment of officials cannot be construed as meaning that an official penalised for having disregarded the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations is entitled to rely on the fact that another official who had disregarded the same requirements was not penalised in order to avoid the measure being taken against him.

( see paras 41-43 )