EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:T:2010 :374 1JUDGMENT O F THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Ch amber)
9 September 2010
Case T-17/08 P
Marta Andreasen
v
European Comm ission
(Appeal — Civil service — Commission a ccounting officer — Disciplinary procedure — Removal from 
post — Procedural safeguards — Effective judicial protection)
Appeal: against the judgment of the European Union C ivil Service Tribunal (Second Ch amber) of 
8 November 2007 i n Case F-40/05 A ndreasen v C omm ission [2007 ] ECR-SC I- A-1-337 
and II-A-1-1859 , seeking to have th at judgment set aside.
Held: The appeal is dismissed. Ms Marta Andreasen is to bear her own costs and to pay those 
incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.
Summ ary
1. Appeal — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Points of law — Review of the proportionality of a 
disciplinary measure — Scope
(Staff Regulations, Annex IX, Art. 10)
2. Union law — Principles — Right to effective judicial protection — Enshrined i n the Eu ropean 
Convention on Human Rights — Reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Eu ropean Union
(Arts 263 TFEU and 270 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Eu ropean Union, Art. 47)
1. The question o f the proportionality of a di sciplinary me asure constitutes a p oint of law w hich is 
consequently subject to review by th e appeal court in an appeal, provided th at that review m ay be 
conducted without calling into question th e findings and assessments of the facts made by the first 
court.
2 ECLI:EU:T:2010 :374SUMM ARY—CASET-17/08P
ANDR EASENvCOMM ISSION
In th e appeal, the purpose of the General Court’s review is, first, to examine to what extent the Civil 
Service Tribunal took into consideration, in a l egally correct manner, the criteria s et out in Article 10 
of Annex IX to th e Staff Regulations, and, second, to consider whether the Civil Service Tribunal 
responded to a s ufficient legal standard t o the arguments on w hich th e applicant relied in seeking an 
assessment of the proportionality of the disciplinary me asure imposed.
(see paras 93-94)
See:
C-252/97 P N v C omm ission [1998 ] ECR I-4871 , paras 58-64; C-274/99 P Connolly v C omm ission [2001 ] ECR I-1611 , 
paras 127 a nd 128; C-359/01 P British Sugar v C omm ission [2004 ] ECR I-4933 , para. 47; judgment of 12 November 
2009 i n C-554/08 P Ca rbone-Lorraine v C omm ission, not published in the ECR, para. 71
2. As a g eneral principle of Union law, the right enshrined in Article 6(1) of the European Convention 
on H uman Rights is applicable in a l egal action a gainst a d ecision o f the Commission.
The principle of effective judicial protection i s a g eneral principle of Union law stemm ing from th e 
constitutional traditions of the Member States, which has been enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 o f that 
Convention, th is principle having furthermore been affirmed by A rticle 47 o f th e Ch arter of 
fundamental rights of the European Union.
The judicial review conducted by the Union judicature in the context of an action for annulment under 
Article 263 T FEU o r Article 270 T FEU allows a p arty sufficient and effective r emedy before an 
independent and impartial tribunal within the me aning of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on 
Human Rights and th e case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, and accordingly makes it 
possible, in any eve nt, to rectify failures and inadequacies in a di sciplinary procedure which preceded 
referral to the Civil Service Tribunal.
In th at respect, th e action f or annulment before the Civil Service Tribunal enables that Tribunal to 
correct both factual and legal errors and to review th e proportionality between th e alleged wrongful 
conduct and the disputed disciplinary me asure.
(see paras 141 , 142 , 145 -146)
See:
C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v C ouncil and Comm ission [2008 ] ECR 
I-6351 , para. 335 ; C-385/07 P Der Grüne Punkt - D uales System D eutschland v C omm ission [2009 ] ECR I-6155 , paras 
178 a nd 179 a nd the case-law cited therein; T-351/01 S chneider Electric v C omm ission [2007 ] ECR II- 2237 , para. 184