JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

9 July 2002

Case T-21/01

Georgis Zavvos

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Disciplinary measures — Downgrading — First paragraph of Article 11 and Article 14 of the Staff Regulations’

Full text in French   II-483

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decision of 11 January 2000 downgrading the applicant from Grade A 5 to Grade A 6, maintaining the same step, and for compensation for the material and nonmaterial damage allegedly suffered by the applicant and assessed at EUR 1 350 000.

Held:

The Commission's decision of 11 January 2000 downgrading the applicant from Grade A 5 to Grade A 6, maintaining the same step, is annulled. The Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant EUR 2 000 by way of compensation for the nonmaterial damage suffered by him. The remainder of the application is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Summary

1. Officials — Rights and obligations — General obligation of independence and probity — Scope — Obligation for an official to be guided in his conduct solely by the interests of the Community — Obligation to inform the appointing authority of any risk of impairment of his independence — Objective nature of the obligations

   (Staff Regulations, Arts 11, first para., and 14)

2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Illegality — Harm — Causal link

   (Art. 288, second para., EC)

3. Officials — Actions — Action for damages — Annulment of the contested unlawful measure — Appropriate compensation for nonmaterial damage

   (Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

4. Officials — Disciplinary measures — Disciplinary proceedings — Hearing of the official concerned by the appointing authority — Hearing prior to the appointing authority 's decision to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Board — Purpose

   (Staff Regulations, Art. 87; Annex IX, Art. 1)

1.  The provisions contained in Articles 11, first paragraph, and 14 of the Staff Regulations place on the official a general obligation of independence and probity vis-à-vis his institution. In that respect they constitute pillars of the deontology of the Community civil service.

   In view of the cardinal importance of the guarantee of independence and integrity of officials as regards both the internal functioning and the external image of the Community institutions, and in the light of the general nature of the wording of the first paragraph of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations, the standard of conduct laid down by that provision must be understood as going beyond the prohibition on an official's seeking or taking instructions from a government, authority, organisation or person outside his institution. It requires that the official's conduct be guided, in all circumstances, solely by the interests of the Community. It therefore prohibits, in general terms, any conduct, whether or not involving a breach of a particular set of rules, which, in the light of the circumstances of the case, shows that the official concerned intended to further a particular interest to the detriment of the Community general interest. Against that background, the finding of an infringement of the first paragraph of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations, where there is a breach of a given set of rules, requires that it be demonstrated or, at least, that it can reasonably be considered, in the light of the factual circumstances of the case, that the breach in question was prompted by the pursuit of an interest other than the interests of the Communities.

   Article 14 of the Staff Regulations requires the official to inform the appointing authority of the existence of a personal interest such as to impair his independence in the handling or outcome of a matter on which he is called upon to decide. In the light of the fundamental nature of the objectives of independence and integrity pursued by that provision, and in view of the fact that the obligation laid down consists, for the official concerned, in informing the appointing authority as a precaution so that the latter can take the appropriate steps in the light of the context of the matter, and not in automatically giving up the handling or resolution of that matter or in excluding, for the purposes of such handling or resolution, those aspects which could involve his personal interest, Article 14 of the Staff Regulations has a wide scope, covering any circumstance which, in the light of the position held by him and of the specific circumstances of the matter, must reasonably be understood by the official as being likely to be seen by third parties as a possible source of impairment of his independence.

   The obligations provided for in Articles 11 and 14 of the Staff Regulations are general and objective in their application, so that the finding of a breach of those obligations is not made subject to the condition that the official concerned must have benefited from that breach or that the breach in question must have harmed the institution, or to the existence of a complaint from a person who considers himself to have been harmed by the conduct of the official.

   (see paras 37-40)

   See: T-34/96 and T-163/96 Connolly v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-87 and II-463, para. 111; T-24/98 and T-241/99 E v Commission [2001] ECRSC I-A-149 and II-681, para. 76

2.  The Community can only be held liable for damages if a number of conditions are satisfied as regards the illegality of the allegedly wrongful conduct of the Community institutions, the actual harm sustained, and the existence of a causal link between the conduct and the harm alleged to have been sustained.

   (see para. 323)

   See: 111/86 Delauche v Commission [1987] ECR 5345, para. 30; T-140/97 Hautem v EIB [1999] ECRSC I-A-171 and II-897, para. 83

3.  Annulment of the act of the administration contested by an official may in itself constitute appropriate and, in principle, sufficient compensation for any nonmaterial damage which the person concerned may have sustained, in particular if the measure did not involve an injurious assessment with respect to him.

   (see para. 325)

   See: T-84/98 C v Council [2000] ECRSC I-A-113 and II-497, para. 101

4.  Article 87 of the Staff Regulations merely requires that an official against whom a disciplinary measure is being contemplated be heard by the appointing authority. The preliminary hearing conducted on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 87 is designed to enable the appointing authority to assess the truth of the facts alleged against the official and to decide whether it is appropriate to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Article 1 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and, if so, to draw up the report stating the conduct complained of and the circumstances in which it occurred. If the appointing authority decides to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Board, inter partes proceedings between the official and the institution concerned will then be initiated.

   (see para. 336)

   See: Case T-74/9 6 Tzoano s v Commissio n [1998] ECRSC I-A-129 and II-343, para. 340