EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 61998CJ0191

Sprendimo santrauka

Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1 Officials - Disciplinary measures - Disciplinary proceedings - Submission that disciplinary proceedings are concurrent with criminal proceedings - Onus on the official to produce proof - Evidence to be appraised by the Court of First Instance - Findings of fact - Whether these may be reviewed in the course of an appeal - Not possible

(Staff Regulations, Art. 88, fifth para.)

2 Officials - Disciplinary measures - Disciplinary proceedings - Rights of the defence must be observed - Where the official has had no opportunity to comment on certain documents - Undisclosed documents inadmissible as evidence - Limits

Summary

1 In the context of disciplinary proceedings against an official who maintains that, for the purposes of the fifth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations, criminal proceedings have been initiated against him in respect of the same acts, it is for that official to provide the appointing authority and, where appropriate, the Court of First Instance with sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that he was subject at one and the same time to disciplinary proceedings and to criminal proceedings relating to the same matters.

A finding by the Court of First Instance that the official had not provided the necessary evidence in that regard constitutes a finding of fact which comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and cannot be called into question in the context of an appeal.

2 According to the principle that the rights of the defence must be observed, an official must have the opportunity, in the context of disciplinary proceedings, to comment on every document which the institution intends to use against him. Where an official is not given such an opportunity, the undisclosed documents must not be taken into consideration as evidence. However, the fact that certain documents used by the institution concerned are inadmissible as evidence is of no significance except to the extent to which the institution's case can be proved only by reference to those documents.

Top