CELEX: 62008TJ0017
Language: en
Date: 2010-09-09
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber) 9 September 2010.#Marta Andreasen v European Commission.#Appeal — Civil service — Commission accounting officer — Disciplinary procedure — Removal from post — Procedural safeguards — Effective judicial protection.#Case T-17/08 P.

Reports of Cases
                         JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)
                                              9 September 2010
                                               Case T-17/08 P
                                              Marta Andreasen
                                                      v
                                           European Commission
   (Appeal — Civil service — Commission accounting officer — Disciplinary procedure — Removal from
                         post — Procedural safeguards — Effective judicial protection)
   Appeal:       against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of
                 8 November 2007 in Case F-40/05 Andreasen v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-337
                 and II-A-1-1859, seeking to have that 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.
                                                  Summary
   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 in the European
   Convention on Human Rights — Reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
   (Arts 263 TFEU and 270 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47)
   1. The question of the proportionality of a disciplinary measure constitutes a point of law which is
   consequently subject to review by the appeal court in an appeal, provided that that review may be
   conducted without calling into question the findings and assessments of the facts made by the first
   court.
EN
          ECLI:EU:T:2010:374                                                                          1
 ---pagebreak---                                                 SUMMARY — CASE T-17/08 P
                                                ANDREASEN v COMMISSION
In the 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 legally correct manner, the criteria set out in Article 10
of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, and, second, to consider whether the Civil Service Tribunal
responded to a sufficient legal standard to the arguments on which the applicant relied in seeking an
assessment of the proportionality of the disciplinary measure imposed.
                                                                                                            (see paras 93-94)
          See:
          C-252/97 P N v Commission [1998] ECR I-4871, paras 58-64; C-274/99 P Connolly v Commission [2001] ECR I-1611,
          paras 127 and 128; C-359/01 P British Sugar v Commission [2004] ECR I-4933, para. 47; judgment of 12 November
          2009 in C-554/08 P Carbone-Lorraine v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 71
2. As a general principle of Union law, the right enshrined in Article 6(1) of the European Convention
on Human Rights is applicable in a legal action against a decision of the Commission.
The principle of effective judicial protection is a general principle of Union law stemming from the
constitutional traditions of the Member States, which has been enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of that
Convention, this principle having furthermore been affirmed by Article 47 of the Charter 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 TFEU or Article 270 TFEU allows a party sufficient and effective remedy before an
independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on
Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, and accordingly makes it
possible, in any event, to rectify failures and inadequacies in a disciplinary procedure which preceded
referral to the Civil Service Tribunal.
In that respect, the action for annulment before the Civil Service Tribunal enables that Tribunal to
correct both factual and legal errors and to review the proportionality between the alleged wrongful
conduct and the disputed disciplinary measure.
                                                                                                (see paras 141, 142, 145-146)
          See:
          C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] ECR
          I-6351, para. 335; C-385/07 P Der Grüne Punkt - Duales System Deutschland v Commission [2009] ECR I-6155, paras
          178 and 179 and the case-law cited therein; T-351/01 Schneider Electric v Commission [2007] ECR II-2237, para. 184
2                                                                                                      ECLI:EU:T:2010:374