Case T-754/20: Action brought on 18 December 2020 — Cristescu v Commission
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, administrative procedure, administrative sanction, confidentiality, disciplinary proceedings, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021062EN.01003701.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/37






Action brought on 18 December 2020 — Cristescu v Commission
(Case T-754/20)
(2021/C 62/48)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Adrian Sorin Cristescu (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas and P. Pichault, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 27 February 2020 of the Director-General [confidential] (1) to impose a penalty of reprimand on the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the general implementing provisions of 12 June 2019 on the conduct of administrative inquiries and disciplinary procedures (‘the GIP’), in so far as the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) did not assess information indicating a possible breach and the documents supporting that information before the opening of the investigation, nor did it prepare a note on that subject for the appointing authority.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 3(1) and 7(4) of the GIP, in so far as the IDOC communicated the confidential report of the duty security staff to the Director-General of [confidential] in view of his hearing or continued the investigation without having established, in breach of its mandate, whether the rules of procedure had been observed, even though the latter was aware of the report. The applicant claims that it is apparent from the file that the Director-General of [confidential] was aware of the report concerning the incident which gave rise to the investigation and the disciplinary proceedings despite the fact that that report was confidential and that the preliminary analysis should have included, inter alia, checking that her statements were consistent with that report, which, moreover, contained indicia that she had been involved in the incident, had requested a security report and announced that she would make a report to the hierarchy.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4 of the GIP, in so far as the proceedings were not conducted within a reasonable time. The applicant claims that unjustified interruptions occurred between the opening of the investigation and the preliminary analysis, then between that analysis and the hearing of witnesses against him and, lastly, between those hearings and that of the applicant, with the result that the witnesses forgot essential elements or, in any event, did not mention them. The applicant takes the view that those deficiencies infringed his rights of defence and undermined the authority’s ability to make a proper assessment.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 15(1) and (2) of the GIP, in so far as the IDOC did not verify a series of facts put forward in defence.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 28(b) of the GIP, in so far as the disciplinary report did not come from the appointing authority and did not state the alleged breaches of the applicant’s obligations. The applicant claims that, contrary to what was stated in the decision of 5 December 2018 opening disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary report of 6 December 2018 prepared by IDOC, although it did not have a mandate in that regard, did not state the alleged facts, which resulted in the disciplinary decision containing different complaints from those contained in the final investigation report.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 28(a) and 3 of the GIP, in so far as the disciplinary report did not set out all the extenuating and exonerating circumstances. The applicant claims that, on account of manifest errors of assessment, the IDOC did not state in its investigation report certain extenuating and exonerating circumstances which it was required to assess owing to the presumption of innocence and which should be deemed established since they had not been refuted and, accordingly, he should not have been found to have breached his obligations.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the first indent of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 11 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, Articles 29 and 30 of the GIP and infringement of the rights of defence, in so far as the complaint upheld was not clearly stated at the opening of the procedure and the applicant was therefore not able to defend himself effectively.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging errors of law and errors of fact or errors of assessment resulting therefrom.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging that it has not been established that the applicant used inappropriate language during the incident giving rise to the investigation and the disciplinary proceedings.






(1)  Confidential information omitted.