JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

17 May 2000

Case T-203/98

Yannis Tzilds

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Disciplinary measures — Removal from post — Reasons — Reality of the facts — Manifest error of assessment’

Full text in French   II-393

Application for:

first, annulment of the decision of 27 October 1998 whereby the appointing authority imposed on the applicant the disciplinary measure of removal from post without withdrawal or reduction of entitlement to retirement pension and, second, damages.

Held:

The appointing authority's decision of 27 October 1998 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of removal from post without withdrawal or reduction of entitlement to retirement pension is annulled. The remainder of the application is dismissed. The Commission shall bear all the costs.

Summary

1. Officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Disciplinary measure — Obligation to state reasons — Scope

   (Staff Regulations, Art. 25)

2. Officials — Disciplinary system — Disciplinary measure — Removal from post — Discretion of the appointing authority — Judicial review — Scope — Limits

   (Staff Regulations, Arts 86 to 89)

3. Officials — Actions — Claims for compensation — Annulment of the contested unlawful measure — Adequate compensation for nonmaterial damage

   (Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

1.  The statement of the reasons on which a decision imposing a disciplinary measure on an official is based must state precisely the facts which the official is found to have committed and the considerations which have led the appointing authority to impose the particular penalty. Furthermore, if the penalty imposed is more severe than that suggested by the Disciplinary Board, the decision must state in detail the reasons why the appointing authority has not followed the opinion of the Disciplinary Board.

   (see para. 32)

   See: 228/83 F. v Commission [1985] ECR 275, para. 35

2.  The appointing authority has the power, distinct from that exercised by the Disciplinary Board, to assess the liability of the official and subsequently to choose the disciplinary measure which it considers appropriate for the disciplinary offences found against him. Since Articles 86 to 89 of the Staff Regulations do not lay down any fixed relationships between the disciplinary measures set out therein and the various types of offence committed by officials and do not state to what extent the existence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances is to influence the choice of penalty, the decision as to the penalty to be imposed must be based on an overall assessment by the appointing authority of all the specific facts and particular circumstances of each individual case. A decision imposing the penalty of removal from post necessarily involves delicate considerations on the part of the institution, given the particularly serious consequences of such a penalty. The institution has a wide discretion in that regard and the Court cannot substitute its assessment for that of the appointing authority; judicial review is limited to ascertaining that the facts were properly established, that there has been no manifest error in the assessment of the facts and that there has been no misuse of powers.

   (see paras 48 to 50)

   See: T-500/93 Y v Court of Justice [1996] ECR-SC I-A-335 and II-977, paras 34 and 56

3.  The annulment of an act of the administration contested by an official in itself constitutes appropriate and — as a rule — adequate reparation for any nonmaterial damage he may have suffered.

   (see para. 66)

   See: T-376/94 Otten v Commission [1996] ECRSC I-A-129 and II-401, para. 55