JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

15 June 2000

Case T-211/98

F

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Suspension — No prior hearing — Action for annulment and for compensation’

Full text in French   II-471

Application for:

first, annulment of the decision of 16 December 1998 whereby the appointing authority suspended the applicant from his post and, second, a claim for compensation for the material and nonmaterial damage allegedly sustained by the applicant as a result of that decision.

Held:

The decision of 16 December 1998 whereby the appointing authority suspended the applicant from his post is annulled. The remainder of the action is dismissed. The Commission shall bear the costs.

Summary

1. Officials — Disciplinary measures — Suspension of an official pursuant to Article 88 of the Staff Regulations — Procedure for adopting the decision to suspend him — No prior hearing of the official — Breach of the rights of the defence — Conditions

   (Staff Regulations, Art. 88)

2. Officials — Actions — Action for compensation — Annulment of the illegal act — Appropriate compensation for non-pecuniary damage

   (Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

1.  Article 88 of the Staff Regulations does not expressly provide that the appointing authority is to hear an official before adopting a decision to suspend him. However, observance of the rights of the defence in any proceedings opened against an individual and capable of leading to an act adversely affecting him constitutes a fundamental principle of Community law which must be observed even in the absence of an express provision to that effect.

   A decision to suspend an official adopted under Article 88 of the Staff Regulations constitutes an act adversely affecting that official. Although it is merely provisional, it is necessarily based on an allegation of serious conduct within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 88 on the part of that official and may entail significant consequences, both professional and personal, for him.

   It follows that, while taking account of the urgency normally present in adopting a decision to suspend an official where there is an allegation of serious misconduct, such a decision must be adopted with due observance of the rights of the defence. Consequently, unless special circumstances are duly established, a decision to suspend an official may be adopted only after the official has been given the opportunity to express his point of view on the evidence against him and on which the appointing authority proposes to base that decision.

   It is only in special circumstances that it might prove impossible in practice, or incompatible with the interest of the service, to hold a hearing before adopting a decision suspending an official. In such circumstances, the requirements flowing from the principle of observance of the rights of the defence may be satisfied if the official concerned is heard within a very short time of the decision to suspend him being adopted.

   (see paras 27, 28, 30 to 32 and 34)

   See: 18/65 and 35/65 Gutmann v Commission [1966] 103, at p. 116; T-169/95 Quijano v Commission [1997] ECRSC I-A-91 and II-273, para. 44; T-36/96 Gaspari v Parliament [1997] ECRSC I-A-201 and II-595, para. 32; T-203/95 Connolly v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-83 and II-443, para. 33

2.  Annulment of the administrative act challenged by an official constitutes in itself appropriate and, in principle, sufficient compensation for any nonmaterial damage which he may have sustained.

   (see para. 41)

   See: C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I-225, para. 26; T-58/92 Moat v Commission [1993] ECR II-1443, para. 71