EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015FA0049
Case F-49/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — FU v Commission (Civil Service — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary Board — Member of the temporary staff of the Court of Auditors appointed as a probationary official of the Commission — Change in place of employment — Simultaneous applications for allowance for resettlement in the home country and installation allowance in Brussels — Application for reimbursement of the removal expenses from Luxembourg to the home country — OLAF enquiry — Disciplinary penalty — Classification in a lower function group without downgrading — Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Manifest error of assessment — Failure to comply with the adversarial principle — New fact — Obligation to reopen the disciplinary procedure — Proportionality of the penalty — Procedural time limit)
Case F-49/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — FU v Commission (Civil Service — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary Board — Member of the temporary staff of the Court of Auditors appointed as a probationary official of the Commission — Change in place of employment — Simultaneous applications for allowance for resettlement in the home country and installation allowance in Brussels — Application for reimbursement of the removal expenses from Luxembourg to the home country — OLAF enquiry — Disciplinary penalty — Classification in a lower function group without downgrading — Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Manifest error of assessment — Failure to comply with the adversarial principle — New fact — Obligation to reopen the disciplinary procedure — Proportionality of the penalty — Procedural time limit)
Case F-49/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — FU v Commission (Civil Service — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary Board — Member of the temporary staff of the Court of Auditors appointed as a probationary official of the Commission — Change in place of employment — Simultaneous applications for allowance for resettlement in the home country and installation allowance in Brussels — Application for reimbursement of the removal expenses from Luxembourg to the home country — OLAF enquiry — Disciplinary penalty — Classification in a lower function group without downgrading — Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Manifest error of assessment — Failure to comply with the adversarial principle — New fact — Obligation to reopen the disciplinary procedure — Proportionality of the penalty — Procedural time limit)
OJ C 191, 30.5.2016, p. 48–49
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
30.5.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 191/48 |
Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — FU v Commission
(Case F-49/15) (1)
((Civil Service - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary Board - Member of the temporary staff of the Court of Auditors appointed as a probationary official of the Commission - Change in place of employment - Simultaneous applications for allowance for resettlement in the home country and installation allowance in Brussels - Application for reimbursement of the removal expenses from Luxembourg to the home country - OLAF enquiry - Disciplinary penalty - Classification in a lower function group without downgrading - Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Manifest error of assessment - Failure to comply with the adversarial principle - New fact - Obligation to reopen the disciplinary procedure - Proportionality of the penalty - Procedural time limit))
(2016/C 191/69)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: FU (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, and subsequently by: C. Ehrbar and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)
Re:
Annulment of the decision imposing a disciplinary sanction on the applicant in the form of reclassification in grade AST 5, whereas the applicant had been appointed to grade AD 5, for making statements, deemed to be false, in order to receive the resettlement allowance and removal expenses.
Operative part of the judgment
The Tribunal:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders FU to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
(1) OJ C 190, 8.6.2015, p. 36.