natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I-A, s. 129, og II, s. 343, herefter »den anfægtede dom«), hvorved Retten frifandt Kommissionen for Tzoanos' påstand om annullation dels af Kommissionens afgørelse af 22. juni 1995 — ved hvilken afgørelse appellanten blev fjernet fra tjenesten uden nedsættelse eller frakendelse af retten til alderspension — dels af den udtrykkelige afgørelse af 19. februar 1996 om afvisning af den klage over afgørelsen af 22. juni 1995, som appellanten havde indgivet den 21. september 1995.
1999 — CASE C-191/98 P the Court of Justice, against the judgment of 19 March 1998 in Case T-74/96 Tzoanos v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-129 and 11-343 ('the contested judgment'), in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action he had brought against the Commission's decision of 22 June 1995 to remove him from his post without loss of his entitlement to a retirement pension and the decision of 19 February 1996 expressly rejecting his complaint of 21 September 1995 against the decision of 22 June 1995.
Det fremgår af den anfægtede dom, at Georges Tzoanos er forhenværende tjenestemand ved Kommissionen, hvor han var indplaceret i lønklasse A3, og at han siden den 1. juli 1989 var chef for enhed 3, »Turisme«, ved direktorat A, »Forbedring af virksomhedspolitik«, ved Generaldirektoratet for Erhvervspolitik, Handel, Turisme og Erhvervsdrivende Foreninger (GD XXIII) (herefter »enhed XXIII.A.3«) (jf. den anfægtede doms præmis 1).
It appears from the contested judgment that Mr Tzoanos is a former official of the Commission in Grade A 3 who, from 1 July 1989, had been Head of Unit 3 'Tourism' in Directorate A 'Business development and improvement of the business environment' of the Directorate-General for Enterprise Policy, Distributive Trades, Tourism and Cooperatives (DG XXIII) (hereinafter 'Unit XXIII.A.3') (paragraph 1 of the contested judgment).
Mod slutningen af 1993 blev Generaldirektoratet for Finanskontrol (GD XX) opmærksom på visse problemer i forvaltningen af enhed XXIII.A.3.
Towards the end of 1993, the Directorate-General for Financial Control (DG XX) discovered a number of problems in the management of Unit XXIII.A.3.
I begyndelsen af 1994 blev Tzoanos' overordnede gjort bekendt med en artikel, der var blevet offentliggjort i den græske presse i juli 1993, og som indeholdt en kritik af appellanten (jf. den anfægtede doms præmis 2).
At the beginning of 1994 a press article which had appeared in Greece in July 1993 concerning the conduct of Mr Tzoanos was brought to the attention of his superiors (paragraph 2 of the contested judgment).
Efter at have gennemført en undersøgelse af Tzoanos' arbejde i enhed XXIII.A.3 rejste ansættelsesmyndigheden den 22. december 1994 sag mod Tzoanos for Disciplinærrådet, hvorunder den rettede fem klagepunkter mod ham. Tzoanos foreholdtes herved nærmere
The appointing authority held an inquiry into Mr Tzoanos's activities within Unit XXIII.A.3 and on 22 December 1994 it referred five complaints against Mr Tzoanos to the Disciplinary Board, namely:
— »at have udøvet og udøve en bibeskæftigelse uden samtykke«
— that he '[had] exercised and continue[d] to exercise unauthorised outside activities';
— »at have tilsidesat sin pligt til at udvise tilbageholdenhed ved, uden at underrette sine overordnede derom, at have haft sin bopæl på samme adresse
— that he had 'failed to observe his duty of discretion in that, without informing his superiors, he had [had] his residence at the same address as that of an
TZOANOS MOD KOMMISSIONEN som et eksternt firma, der deltog regelmæssigt i projekter, som blev støttet, eller som kunne tænkes at blive støttet af Kommissionen, og ved offentligt at have kritiseret en national organisation inden for turisme«
TZOANOS V COMMISSION outside firm which regularly participated in projects funded or to be funded by the Commission and [had] publicly criticised a national body involved in the field of tourism';
— »inden for det faglige område, han varetager ved Kommissionen, at have udført tjenesteydelser for personer eller foretagender uden for institutionen, som kunne have bragt hans uafhængighed som chef for en enhed ved Kommissionen i fare«
— that he had 'provided services to the Commission in the field of his professional activities on behalf of persons or bodies outside the institution in such a way as to have compromised his independence in the performance of his duties as Head of Unit within the Commission';
— »at have begået administrative ulovligheder og fejl i den budgetmæssige og finansielle forvaltning under udøvelsen af sine funktioner som chef for enheden 'Turisme'« (jf. den anfægtede doms præmis 3 og 10).
— that he had 'committed administrative irregularities and been guilty of budgetary and financial mismanagement in the performance of his duties as Head of the "Tourism" Unit' (paragraphs 3 and 10 of the contested judgment).
Den 5. april 1995 tilsendte ansættelsesmyndigheden Disciplinærrådet en supplerende indberetning (jf. den anfægtede doms præmis 15).
On 5 April 1995 the appointing authority sent an additional report to the Disciplinary Board (paragraph 15 of the contested judgment).
Den 23. maj 1995 afgav Disciplinærrådet en begrundet udtalelse, som var vedtaget med enstemmighed, hvori det anbefalede ansættelsesmyndigheden i henhold til artikel 86, stk. 2, litra f), i vedtægten for tjenestemænd i De Europæiske Fællesskaber (herefter »vedtægten«) at pålægge Tzoanos en
On 23 May 1995 the Disciplinary Board delivered a unanimous reasoned opinion recommending that the appointing authority should impose on Mr Tzoanos the disciplinary measure referred to in Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities ('the Staff Regulations'), namely removal
Tzoanos modtog meddelelse om udtalelsen den 1. juni 1995 (jf. den anfægtede doms præmis 16).
That opinion was notified to Mr Tzoanos on 1 June 1995 (paragraph 16 of the contested judgment).
Den 12. juni 1995 blev Tzoanos hørt i overensstemmelse med artikel 7, stk. 3, i vedtægtens bilag IX (jf. den anfægtede doms præmis 17).
On 12 June 1995 Mr Tzoanos was heard in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations (paragraph 17 of the contested judgment).
Den 22. juni 1995 besluttede ansættelsesmyndigheden at opretholde de fem klagepunkter, hvorom den havde rejst sag for Disciplinærrådet (jf. ovenfor, præmis 4), da den ligesom Disciplinærrådet fandt, at de omstændigheder, som var foreholdt Tzoanos, var godtgjort ved uomtvistelige beviser, og at tjenestemanden selv i vidt omfang havde indrømmet rigtigheden af disse omstændigheder. Ansættelsesmyndigheden besluttede som følge heraf at pålægge Tzoanos en disciplinær sanktion i henhold til vedtægtens artikel 86, stk. 2, litra f), bestående i fjernelse fra tjenesten uden nedsættelse eller frakendelse af retten til alderspension (herefter »den anfægtede afgørelse« ).
On 22 June 1995 the appointing authority decided to uphold the five complaints which it had referred to the Disciplinary Board (see paragraph 4 of this judgment), since it agreed with the Disciplinary Board that the charges against Mr Tzoanos were substantiated by incontrovertible evidence and to a large degree admitted by him, and to impose a disciplinary measure referred to in Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations, namely removal from post without reduction or withdrawal of entitlement to retirement pension ('the contested decision').
Denne afgørelse blev meddelt Tzoanos den 23. juni 1995. Afgørelsen havde virkning fra den 1. august 1995 (jf. den anfægtede doms præmis 18).
That decision was notified to Mr Tzoanos on 23 June 1995 and took effect on 1 August 1995 (paragraph 18 of the contested judgment).
Ved skrivelse af 21. september 1995, som blev registreret på Kommissionens Generalsekretariat den 25. september 1995, indgav Tzoanos en klage i henhold til vedtægtens artikel 90, stk. 2, som blev udtrykkeligt afvist ved afgørelse af 19. februar 1996 (jf. den anfægtede doms præmis 19).
By note of 21 September 1995, which was registered at the Secretariat-General of the Commission on 25 September 1995, Mr Tzoanos submitted a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, which was expressly rejected by decision of 19 February 1996 (paragraph 19 of the contested judgment).
10 Tzoanos har herefter anlagt sag ved indgivelse af stævning, som blev indleveret på Rettens Justitskontor den 17. maj 1996, med påstand om annullation af den
10 It was against that background that, by application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 17 May 1996, Mr Tzoanos brought an action for the
TZOANOS MOD KOMMISSIONEN anfægtede afgørelse og af den udtrykkelige afvisning af den klage over afgørelsen af 22. juni 1995, som Tzoanos havde indgivet den 21. september 1995.
TZOANOS V COMMISSION annulment of the contested decision and of the express rejection of his complaint of 21 September 1995 against the decision of 22 June 1995.
Ved den anfægtede dom frifandt Retten som helhed Kommissionen efter at have behandlet de af Tzoanos fremførte anbringender.
11 By the contested judgment, after examining the pleas in law relied on by Mr Tzoanos, the Court of First Instance dismissed the application in its entirety.
12 Der henvises til den anfægtede dom, som indeholder en mere udførlig redegørelse vedrørende de retlige og faktiske omstændigheder.
12 For a fuller account of the legal background and facts of the case, reference should be made to the contested judgment.
13 Appellen støttes på, at fællesskabsretten er tilsidesat, nærmere betegnet:
13 The appeal is based on infringement of Community law, in particular:
— artikel 33 i EF-statutten for Domstolen, hvorefter domme skal begrundes, og hvilken bestemmelse i medfør af samme statuts artikel 46 finder tilsvarende anvendelse på Retten.
— infringement of Article 33 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, which provides that judgments are to state the reasons on which they are based and which, pursuant to Article 46 of that Statute, is applicable to the Court of First Instance.
Ifølge appellanten indebærer forpligtelsen til at begrunde domme navnlig, at de anførte præmisser skal være lovligt uanfægtelige, dvs. være tilstrækkelige, relevante, ikke behæftet med nogen retlig eller faktisk fejl og ikke selvmodsigende
Mr Tzoanos claims that the obligation to state reasons implies, in particular, that the reasons given must be legally permissible, that is to say adequate, relevant, not vitiated by any error of law or of fact and not contradictory;
— vedtægten, navnlig artikel 12, 13, 14, 17, artikel 21, stk. 1 og 2, artikel 25, artikel 87, stk. 2, og artikel 88, stk. 5, samt bilag IX, navnlig bilagets artikel 1, 2, 3, artikel 7, stk. 2, og artikel 11
— infringement of the Staff Regulations, specifically Articles 12,13, 14, 17, 21, first and second paragraphs, 25, 87, second paragraph, and 88, fifth
— fællesskabsrettens almindelige retsgrundsætninger, dvs. navnlig principperne om retten til forsvar, kontradiktion og uvildighed (samt artikel 6 i den europæiske konvention til beskyttelse af menneskerettigheder og grund læggende frihedsrettigheder), retssikkerhed, god tro, beskyttelse af den berettigede forventning, omsorgspligten samt princippet om, at enhver forvaltningsakt skal være baseret på lovligt uanfægtelige grunde, dvs. grunde, som er relevante og ikke behæftet med nogen retlig og/eller faktisk fejl.
— infringement of general principles of Community law, namely the principles that the rights of the defence must be observed, the right to an inter partes hearing and an impartial court (and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms), legal certainty, good faith, protection of legitimate expectations, the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of officials and the principle that all administrative measures must be based on legally permissible grounds, that is to say grounds which are relevant and not vitiated by any error of law and/or of fact.
— anvendelse af vedtægtens artikel 88, stk. 5
— application of the fifth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations;
— anvendelse af vedtægten, navnlig artikel 21, på Tzoanos' tjenstlige forplig telser på det finansielle område
— application of the Staff Regulations, in particular Article 21, with regard to Mr Tzoanos's financial obligations;
— overholdelse af retten til forsvar, navnlig aktindsigt.
— observance of the rights of the defence concerning, in particular, access to documents.
15 Før det første skal appellantens argumenter vedrørende anvendelsen af vedtægtens artikel 88, stk. 5, behandles, som går ud på, at Retten ikke har anvendt
15 It is appropriate to examine, first, the appellant's arguments regarding the application of the fifth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations, which
Det skal i den forbindelse først undersøges, om bestemmelsen overhovedet finder anvendelse i sagen.
First of all the Court must establish that that article is applicable to the present case.
16 Vedtægtens artikel 88, stk. 1 og 5, bestemmer:
16 The first and fifth paragraphs of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations are worded as follows:
»Såfremt en tjenestemand... påstås at have begået en alvorlig forseelse... kan ansættelsesmyndigheden straks suspendere ham fra tjenesten.
'Where an allegation of serious misconduct is made against an official ... [the appointing authority] may order that he be suspended forthwith.
Hvis der er rejst straffesag mod tjenestemanden på grundlag af de samme forhold, fastlægges hans retsstilling dog først, når den endelige dom er blevet afsagt af den domstol, der behandler sagen.«
Where, however, the official is prosecuted for those same acts, a final decision shall be taken only after a final verdict has been reached by the court hearing the case.'
17 Hvad angår denne bestemmelse gennemgik Retten først dens indhold i den anfægtede doms præmis 33 og 34.
17 As regards application of that provision, the Court of First Instance first examined its purpose, in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the contested judgment.
Den fastslog dernæst i præmis 35, at det fremgår af ordningen i denne bestemmelse, at den pågældende tjenestemand selv måtte fremlægge de nødvendige oplysninger for ansættelsesmyndigheden til vurdering af, om der samtidig med disciplinærsagen var rejst straffesag mod ham for de samme forhold, som han foreholdtes under disciplinærsagen.
Then, in paragraph 35, it held that it followed from the scheme of Article 88 that it was for the official concerned to provide the appointing authority with sufficient information to enable it to determine whether the matters of which he was accused in disciplinary proceedings were at the same time the subject of criminal proceedings against him.
Retten fandt, at tjenestemanden for at opfylde denne forpligtelse principielt skulle godtgøre, at der var rejst straffesag mod ham på et tidspunkt, hvor der verserede en disciplinærsag mod ham.
The Court considered that in order to meet that obligation the official concerned had, as a rule, to show that criminal proceedings had been initiated against him while he was subject to disciplinary proceedings.
Den bemærkede, at det er først, når der er rejst en sådan
The Court observed that it was only where such criminal proceedings had been
18 Hvad angår Tzoanos' situation fastslog Retten i den anfægtede doms præmis 36 og 37, at det fremgik af oplysningerne i de sagsakter, den havde fået forelagt, at der endnu ikke var rejst straffesag mod ham på tidspunktet for vedtagelsen af den anfægtede afgørelse.
18 In Mr Tzoanos's case the Court of First Instance held, in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the contested judgment, that the evidence before it showed that on the date on which the contested decision had been adopted no criminal proceedings had been initiated against the applicant.
19 Endvidere antog Retten i den anfægtede doms præmis 38, at da der på det nævnte tidspunkt var iværksat en undersøgelse vedrørende Tzoanos, som kunne føre til, at der blev rejst straffesag mod ham, måtte der i overensstemmelse med formålet med vedtægtens artikel 88, stk. 5, gives ham mulighed for at godtgøre, at en afgørelse, hvorved hans retsstilling blev endeligt fastlagt under disciplinærsagen, kunne forringe hans retsstilling under en efterfølgende straffesag, hvis den iværksatte undersøgelse førte til, at der blev rejst straffesag.
19 Then, in paragraph 38 of the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance considered that in so far as Mr Tzoanos was at that time the subject of inquiries liable to lead to criminal proceedings he had to be allowed, in accordance with the ratio legis of the fifth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations, to show specifically that a final decision on his case in disciplinary proceedings was capable of affecting his position in any criminal proceedings to which the inquiries might lead.
20 Retten udtalte i den anfægtede doms præmis 39, at det fremgik af procesdokumenterne, at Tzoanos ikke havde givet en præcis beskrivelse af de forhold, som anførtes at udgøre »de samme forhold«, for hvilke der var rejst disciplinærsag, og som havde ført dels til vedtagelse af den anfægtede afgørelse, dels til, at der blev rejst straffesag.
20 The Court of First Instance considered, in paragraph 39 of the contested judgment, that it was clear from the documents before it that Mr Tzoanos had not precisely identified matters capable of being classified as the 'same acts' in respect of which he was subject simultaneously to disciplinary proceedings which had led to the adoption of the contested decision and to criminal proceedings.
I den anfægtede doms præmis 208 konkluderede Retten, at Tzoanos heller ikke under sagen ved Retten havde godtgjort, at der var tale om de samme forhold.
In paragraph 208 of the contested judgment the Court of First Instance concluded that Mr Tzoanos had also failed to demonstrate the existence of such matters in the context of the proceedings before it.
21 Det fremgår således af den anfægtede dom, at det var Rettens konklusion, at vedtægtens artikel 88, stk. 5, ikke fandt anvendelse af to grunde.
21 Thus it follows from the contested judgment that the Court of First Instance concluded that the fifth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations was not applicable for two reasons.
For det første fordi der endnu ikke var rejst straffesag mod Tzoanos på tidspunktet for vedtagelsen af den anfægtede afgørelse.
First, on the date on which the contested decision had been adopted no criminal proceedings had been initiated against Mr Tzoanos.
For det andet fordi Tzoanos i forbindelse
Second, in so far as Mr Tzoanos had referred to the existence of criminal
TZOANOS MOD KOMMISSIONEN med sin omtale af, at der var iværksat en undersøgelse, hverken under den disciplinærsag, som førte til vedtagelsen af den anfægtede afgørelse, eller under sagen ved Retten havde angivet de forhold, for hvilke der var rejst såvel disciplinærsag som straffesag.
TZOANOS V COMMISSION inquiries, he had not identified, either in the disciplinary proceedings leading to the adoption of the contested decision or in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, any matters forming the subject of disciplinary proceedings and at the same time the subject of criminal proceedings.
Retten begik således ikke nogen retlig fejl ved at antage, at Tzoanos selv måtte fremlægge de nødvendige oplysninger for at ansættelsesmyndigheden og for Retten til godtgørelse af, at der var rejst såvel disciplinærsag som straffesag mod ham for det samme forhold.
In taking the view that it was for Mr Tzoanos to provide the appointing authority and the Court of First Instance with the necessary evidence to conclude that he was subject at the same time to disciplinary proceedings and to criminal proceedings relating to the same matters, the Court of First Instance did not commit an error of law.
Da betingelserne for anvendelsen af vedtægtens artikel 88, stk. 5, følgelig ikke var opfyldt i sagen, er det ufornødent at behandle Tzoanos' øvrige argumenter herom.
Since the conditions governing the application of the fifth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations are not satisfied in this case, there is no need to consider the other arguments which Mr Tzoanos has put forward on this point.
For det andet skal argumenterne vedrørende tilsidesættelsen af vedtægten, navnlig artikel 21, gennemgås.
Secondly, the arguments concerning infringement of the Staff Regulations, in particular Article 21, must be examined.
26 Tzoanos har for det første gjort gældende, at han ikke kunne pålægges noget ansvar for den budgetmæssige og finansielle opfølgning af projekter, da han ikke var betalingsanviser og for det andet, at den anfægtede dom indeholder en åbenbar ulovlighed.
Mr Tzoanos claims, first, that since he was not the authorising officer for payments he could not be held responsible for the budgetary and financial monitoring of a project.
Han anfører, at han ifølge vedtægtens artikel 21, stk. 1,
Secondly, he maintains that the contested judgment contains a manifest error of law.
Ansvaret for mangler i forvaltningen af ressourcerne i enheden »Turisme« påhvilede general direktøren og ikke ham.
He considers that responsibility for mismanagement of the resources of the 'Tourism' Unit lay with the Director-General, not with himself.
Hvad angår det første af disse argumenter fremgår det klart af den anfægtede doms præmis 202 og 203, at Retten antog, at selv om Tzoanos ikke formelt var betalingsanviser, var han dog forpligtet som chef for enheden XXIII.A.3 til på forhånd at efterprøve berettigelsen af de ansøgninger om betaling, som var indgivet af modtagerne af de subventioner, der tildeles ved beslutning fra GD XXIII.
As regards the first of these arguments, it is clear, from paragraphs 202 and 203 of the contested judgment, that the Court of First Instance considered that even if Mr Tzoanos was not formally an authorising officer for payments he was none the less under an obligation, as Head of Unit XXIII.A.3, to effect a preliminary verification of the merits of applications for payment submitted by recipients of subsidies granted by decision of DG XXIII.
Som generaladvokaten har fremhævet i punkt 60 i sit forslag til afgørelse, har Retten, da den nåede frem til den konklusion, at de anførte mangler faldt inden for Tzoanos' ansvarsområde, uanset om han var betalingsanviser eller ej, foretaget en faktisk konstatering, som ikke kan efterprøves under en appelsag.
As the Advocate General observed in point 60 of his Opinion, in reaching the conclusion that the deficiencies cited fell within Mr Tzoanos's responsibilities, irrespective of whether he was the authorising officer for payments, the Court of First Instance made a finding of fact which cannot be reviewed in an appeal.
Også Tzoanos' andet argument vedrørende anvendelsen af vedtægtens artikel 21 må forkastes.
Mr Tzoanos's second argument, concerning the application of Article 21 of the Staff Regulations, must also be rejected.
Retten har til fulde overholdt kravene i denne bestemmelse, da den
In ascertaining the precise scope of the tasks entrusted to Mr Tzoanos and defining his responsibility in terms of those
TZOANOS MOD KOMMISSIONEN foretog en efterprøvelse af det nøjagtige omfang af de opgaver, der var pålagt Tzoanos, og da den fastlagde dennes ansvar i forhold til disse opgaver.
TZOANOS V COMMISSION tasks, the Court of First Instance fully complied with the requirements of that provision.
31 Endelig skal Tzoanos' argumenter vedrørende respekten for retten til forsvar undersøges.
31 Lastly, the Court must examine Mr Tzoanos's arguments concerning observance of his rights of defence.
Appellanten har herom gjort gældende, at dommen bør ophæves, da den indeholder en fejlagtig anvendelse af kontradiktionsprincippet, princippet om parternes ligestilling og begrundelsespligten.
He claims that the judgment should be set aside on the ground that it misapplied the principles of audi alteram partem, equality of arms and the obligation to state reasons.