CELEX: C1996/370/39
Language: en
Date: 1996-12-07 00:00:00
Title: Removal from the register of T-19/96

7 . 12 . 96             EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 370/ 19
1 . He alleges, first, infringement of the disciplinary                    second paragraph of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations
     procedure and of essential procedural requirements .                  infringes Article 10 (2 ) of the Convention on Human
                                                                           Rights, since it leads to a fundamental prohibition of
     He maintains that the contested decision was taken in                 publication which goes beyond the limitations
     breach of Articles 87 and 88 of the Staff Regulations                 envisaged by the latter provision.
     and of the general principles concerning policy in
     disciplinary matters, in that it was based on a fault —          3 . Finally, Mr Connolly alleges misuse of powers,
     an alleged conflict between the substance of his work                 maintaining that there is precise and consistent evidence
     and Commission policy — which was not raised in the                   to show that, in this case, the decision to remove him
     report of the authority which referred the matter to the              from his post was taken before any assessment of the
     Disciplinary Board.                                                   seriousness of the facts in the context of the disciplinary
                                                                           procedure .
     He also complains of a lack of reasoning in the
     Disciplinary Board's opinion and the appointing
     authority's decision and of infringement of Article 7 of         As regards his claim for compensation, Mr Connolly argues
     Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and of the rights of           that the irregularities of which he complains have caused
     the defence, in that neither the Board nor the                   him material and non-material damage. The material
     appointing authority took the trouble to deal with the           damage consists in his removal from his employment,
     pleas he raised in his defence .                                 resulting in the reduction and then the withdrawal of his
                                                                      remuneration; concomitantly, he has lost any chance of
     He also alleges infringement of the procedural                   obtaining the promotions which his qualifications and his
     provisions in Title VI of the Staff Regulations and              position warranted . The non-material damage consists,
     Articles 3 , 4, 5, 6 and 8 of Annex IX, in that: ( a ) both      first, in his being deprived of his legitimate expectation in
     the Disciplinary Board's opinion and the appointing              the pursuit of his career and, secondly, in the damage to his
     authority's decision were drawn up on the strength of            reputation and professional esteem by reason of the
     facts that were not the subject of a prior hearing; ( b ) no     accusations upheld against him, in respect of which he was
     report was made on the matter as a whole; (c ) the               not even asked to explain himself.
     decision was taken with the active participation of the
     chairman of the Board; and ( d ) the decision was taken          0 ) Case T-203/95 , OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 16 .
     without even a proper examination of his pleas in                (2 ) Case T-34/96, OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996, p. 32.
     defence .
2 . As regards the content of the contested decision, Mr
     Connolly argues, first, that both the Disciplinary Board
     and the appointing authority regarded his receipt of                         Removal from the register of T- 19/96 ( ! )
     royalties for the work in question as contrary to
     Article 1 1 of the Staff Regulations, on the basis of an                                     ( 96/C 370/39 )
     interpretation of that provision whereby any
     remuneration from sources outside the institution is                              (Language of the case: English)
     prohibited without the prior authorization of the
     appointing authority. He considers that that                     By order of 22 October 1996 the President of the Fourth
     interpretation is contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No 1         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
     of 20 March 1952 to the European Convention on                   Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
     Human Rights.                                                    Case T-19/96 : John Carvel and Guardian Newspapers Ltd
                                                                      v. Council of the European Union .
     He also considers that the interpretation given by the
     Disciplinary Board and the appointing authority to the           0 ) OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .