The provisions contained in Articles 11, first paragraph, and 14 of the Staff Regulations place on the official a general obligation of independence and probity vis-à-vis his institution. In that respect they constitute pillars of the deontology of the Community civil service.

In view of the cardinal importance of the guarantee of independence and integrity of officials as regards both the internal functioning and the external image of the Community institutions, and in the light of the general nature of the wording of the first paragraph of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations, the standard of conduct laid down by that provision must be understood as going beyond the prohibition on an official's seeking or taking instructions from a government, authority, organisation or person outside his institution. It requires that the official's conduct be guided, in all circumstances, solely by the interests of the Community. It therefore prohibits, in general terms, any conduct, whether or not involving a breach of a particular set of rules, which, in the light of the circumstances of the case, shows that the official concerned intended to further a particular interest to the detriment of the Community general interest. Against that background, the finding of an infringement of the first paragraph of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations, where there is a breach of a given set of rules, requires that it be demonstrated or, at least, that it can reasonably be considered, in the light of the factual circumstances of the case, that the breach in question was prompted by the pursuit of an interest other than the interests of the Communities.

Article 14 of the Staff Regulations requires the official to inform the appointing authority of the existence of a personal interest such as to impair his independence in the handling or outcome of a matter on which he is called upon to decide. In the light of the fundamental nature of the objectives of independence and integrity pursued by that provision, and in view of the fact that the obligation laid down consists, for the official concerned, in informing the appointing authority as a precaution so that the latter can take the appropriate steps in the light of the context of the matter, and not in automatically giving up the handling or resolution of that matter or in excluding, for the purposes of such handling or resolution, those aspects which could involve his personal interest, Article 14 of the Staff Regulations has a wide scope, covering any circumstance which, in the light of the position held by him and of the specific circumstances of the matter, must reasonably be understood by the official as being likely to be seen by third parties as a possible source of impairment of his independence.

The obligations provided for in Articles 11 and 14 of the Staff Regulations are general and objective in their application, so that the finding of a breach of those obligations is not made subject to the condition that the official concerned must have benefited from that breach or that the breach in question must have harmed the institution, or to the existence of a complaint from a person who considers himself to have been harmed by the conduct of the official.

(see paras 37-40)

See: T-34/96 and T-163/96 Connolly v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-87 and II-463, para. 111; T-24/98 and T-241/99 E v Commission [2001] ECRSC I-A-149 and II-681, para. 76