EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022CJ0111
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 January 2024.
Helene Hamers v European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop).
Appeal – Civil service – Official – Investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) – National criminal proceedings – National decision to acquit the appellant – Damage allegedly sustained as a result of the unlawful conduct of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) during the national criminal proceedings – Rejection of the claim for damages brought by the appellant – Action for annulment and for damages – Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Requirement of impartiality – Conflict of interests – Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Presumption of innocence – Principle of sincere cooperation – Annulment of the contested decision in part.
Case C-111/22 P.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 January 2024.
Helene Hamers v European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop).
Appeal – Civil service – Official – Investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) – National criminal proceedings – National decision to acquit the appellant – Damage allegedly sustained as a result of the unlawful conduct of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) during the national criminal proceedings – Rejection of the claim for damages brought by the appellant – Action for annulment and for damages – Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Requirement of impartiality – Conflict of interests – Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Presumption of innocence – Principle of sincere cooperation – Annulment of the contested decision in part.
Case C-111/22 P.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2024:5
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 January 2024 –
Hamers v Cedefop
(Case C‑111/22 P) ( 1 )
(Appeal – Civil service – Official – Investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) – National criminal proceedings – National decision to acquit the appellant – Damage allegedly sustained as a result of the unlawful conduct of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) during the national criminal proceedings – Rejection of the claim for damages brought by the appellant – Action for annulment and for damages – Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Requirement of impartiality – Conflict of interests – Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Presumption of innocence – Principle of sincere cooperation – Annulment of the contested decision in part)
|
1. |
Fundamental rights – Charter of Fundamental Rights – Right to good administration – Requirement of impartiality – Concept – Presumption until evidence to the contrary adduced (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1)) (see paragraphs 44-48) |
|
2. |
Officials – Rights and obligations – Obligation of independence and integrity – Requirement of impartiality – Concept – Director of an agency took a decision on a claim for compensation of an agent after having been a witness in investigative procedures and judicial proceedings concerning that agent – Infringement (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1); Staff Regulations of Officials, Art 11a) (see paragraphs 49-53) |
|
3. |
Fundamental rights – Presumption of innocence – Scope (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48(1)) (see paragraphs 80-82) |
|
4. |
Member States – Obligations – Duty of sincere cooperation – Scope (Art. 4(3) TEU) (see paragraph 100) |
Operative part
The Court:
|
1. |
Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 December 2021, Hamers v Cedefop (T‑159/20, EU:T:2021:913) in so far as it dismissed the second plea in law relied on before the General Court, alleging infringement of the requirement of impartiality, and in so far as it dismissed the claim for damages, to the extent that that dismissal is based on the dismissal of the second plea; |
|
2. |
Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder; |
|
3. |
Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the claim for annulment and the claim for damages, to the extent that those claims were based on the second plea in law relied on before the General Court; |
|
4. |
Reserves the costs. |
( 1 ) OJ C 222, 7.6.2022.