Staff case summary

Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Decision adversely affecting an official – Disciplinary measure – Obligation to state reasons – Scope

2. Officials – Principles – Principle of sound administration – Scope

3. Officials – Staff of the European Central Bank – Disciplinary measures – Observance of the rights of the defence – Obligation exists even where there is no written rule

(Staff Regulations, Art. 87; Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, Art. 43)

4. Officials – Equal treatment – Definition – Limits

5. Officials – Disciplinary measures – Obligation to hear person concerned before adopting decision – Failure to observe – Irregularity capable of having had a particular impact on the content of the decision – Infringement of the rights of the defence

6. Officials – Staff of the European Central Bank – Disciplinary measures – Observance of the rights of the defence – No citation, when the disciplinary procedure was initiated, of the provisions allegedly infringed by the applicant – Tangible consequences

7. Officials – Staff of the European Central Bank – Rights and obligations – Respect for the dignity of duties – Duty of loyalty – Scope

(Staff Regulations, Arts 12 and 21, first para.; Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, Arts 4(a) and 9(c))

8. Officials – Staff of the European Central Bank – Disciplinary measures – Penalties – Principle of proportionality – Concept – Discretion of the appointing authority – Judicial review – Limits

(Staff Regulations, Arts 86 to 89; Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, Art. 43)

9. Officials – Actions – Action for damages – No illegal act committed by the administration – Dismissal

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

1. The statement of the reasons for a decision adversely affecting the person concerned must enable the Community judicature to exercise its review of legality and provide that person with the information which he needs in order to know whether the decision is well founded. Although the statement of the grounds for the administration’s decision in a disciplinary procedure must indicate precisely the allegations against the official and the considerations which led the appointing authority to pronounce the chosen measure, there is no requirement that the grounds should cover all the matters of fact or of law which the official concerned raised during the proceedings.

(see paras 37-38)

See: C-188/96 P Commission v V [1997] ECR I-6561, para. 26; T-40/95 V v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-587 and II-1753, para. 36; T-34/96 and T-163/96 Connolly v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-87 and II-463, para. 93; T-372/00 Campolargo v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-49 and II-223, para. 49; T-197/00 Onidi v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-69 and II-325, para. 156

2. In accordance with the principle of sound administration, when the administration takes a decision concerning the situation of an official, it must take into consideration all the factors which may affect its decision, and when doing so it should take into account not only the interests of the service but also those of the official concerned.

(see paras 42, 217)

See: 417/85 Maurissen v Court of Auditors [1987] ECR 551, para. 12; T-199/01 G v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-217 and II-1085, para. 67; T-7/01 Pyres v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I-A-37 and II-239, para. 77

3. Observance of the rights of the defence constitutes a fundamental principle of Community law which must be observed even in the absence of an express provision to that effect. Furthermore, Article 43 of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank provides, in the same way as Article 87 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, that the disciplinary procedure must ensure that no member of staff may be subjected to a disciplinary measure without an opportunity to reply to the relevant charges first being granted.

The statement of the grounds for a disciplinary decision is not required to discuss all the matters of fact or of law which the official concerned raised during the proceedings. Consequently, the mere fact that the contested decision does not address certain arguments presented during the disciplinary procedure is not sufficient to demonstrate that the member of staff disciplined has not been properly heard during that procedure.

(see paras 49-50, 52)

See: T-169/95 Quijano v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-91 and II-273, para. 44; Connolly v Commission , para. 93; T-211/98 F v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-107 and II-471, para. 28; T-333/99 X v ECB [2001] ECR II-3021, paras 176 and 177; Onidi v Commission , para. 156

4. The principle of non-discrimination applies only to persons who are in identical or comparable situations and requires that differences in treatment between different categories of officials or temporary staff must be justified on the basis of objective and reasonable criteria and that the difference must be proportionate to the aim pursued by the differential treatment.

(see para. 65)

See: T-8/93 Huet v Court of Auditors [1994] ECR II-103, para. 45

5. In disciplinary procedures the principle of respect for the rights of the defence is infringed where it is established that the person concerned was not given a proper hearing before the act adversely affecting him was adopted and where it cannot be reasonably precluded that that irregularity could have had a particular impact on the content of that act.

(see para. 90)

See: T-237/00 Reynolds v Parliament [2002] ECR II-163, para. 113

6. The fact that, when disciplinary proceedings were initiated against one of its staff, the European Central Bank did not explicitly cite the rules whose infringement was ultimately upheld in the disciplinary decision adopted at the end of the proceedings may not be deemed to have deprived the person concerned of his right to a proper hearing where he was able to know exactly which rules he was alleged to have breached from the allegations brought at the start of the proceedings.

Furthermore, even if the person concerned cannot be said to have known that he was alleged to have infringed a particular rule, the disciplinary decision is not affected if it is clear from its statement of reasons that the other infringements alleged against him, and on which he was able to be properly heard, were themselves sufficient to justify the existence and degree of the penalty imposed.

(see paras 111-121)

7. Article 12 of the Staff Regulations, which provides that ‘[a]n official shall abstain from any action and, in particular, any public expression of opinion which may reflect upon his position’, is designed to ensure that Community officials conduct themselves in such a way as to present an image of dignity consistent with the particularly correct and respectable conduct which one is entitled to expect of members of an international civil service.

Moreover, the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Staff Regulations lays down a duty of loyalty and cooperation for all officials in respect of the institution to which they belong and their superiors. This duty of loyalty and cooperation entails not only positive obligations but also, a fortiori, a negative obligation, in general terms, to refrain from conduct likely to prejudice the dignity and respect due to the institution and its authorities.

Taking account of the specific reference made in Article 9(c) of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank to the rules applicable to officials of the European Communities, the obligation laid down in Article 4(a) of the Conditions of Employment that members of the Bank’s staff must ‘conduct themselves in a manner befitting their position and the character of the ECB as a Community body’ is to be interpreted as imposing on the Bank’s staff duties of loyalty and dignity similar to those which apply for officials of the European Communities.

(see paras 191-193)

See: 3/66 Alfieri v Parliament [1966] ECR 437, 448; T-146/89 Williams v Court of Auditors [1991] ECR II-1293, para. 72; T-146/94 Williams v Court of Auditors [1996] ECR-SC I-A-103 and II-329, paras 65 and 72; T-273/94 N v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-97 and II-289, para. 127; T-259/97 Teixeira Neves v Court of Justice [2000] ECR-SC I-A-169 and II-773, paras 44 to 47; Onidi v Commission , para. 73

8. Application of the principle of proportionality in disciplinary matters comprises two aspects.

First, it is for the appointing authority to choose the appropriate penalty where the truth of the matters alleged against the staff member is established, and it is not open to the Community judicature to criticise that choice unless the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the matters alleged against the person concerned. Second, the penalty to be imposed is to be determined on the basis of an overall assessment by the appointing authority of all the concrete facts and matters appertaining to each individual case, inasmuch as Articles 86 to 89 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, like the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, do not specify any fixed relationship between the disciplinary measures listed by them and the various types of misconduct on the part of officials, and do not state the extent to which aggravating or mitigating circumstances are to be taken into account in the choice of penalty. Consequently, the examination by the Community judicature is limited to a consideration of the question whether the weight attached by the appointing authority to such aggravating or mitigating circumstances is proportionate, and it cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the appointing authority.

(see para. 203)

See: X v ECB , para. 221

9. Non-contractual liability on the part of the Community presupposes the fulfilment of a set of conditions concerning the illegality of the allegedly wrongful act committed by the Community institution, the actual damage suffered, and the existence of a causal link between the alleged act and the damage alleged to have been suffered. Consequently, an application made by an official for compensation for non-material damage alleged to have been suffered by him as a result of the illegality of the act committed by the Community institution must be dismissed if that illegality is not established.

(see para. 224)

See: T-589/93 Ryan-Sheridan v European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions [1996] ECR-SC I-A-27 and II-77, paras 141 and 142