Language of document : ECLI:EU:F:2015:51

JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Single Judge)

3 June 2015

Case F‑128/14

Luc Bedin

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary penalty — Respective roles and powers of the Disciplinary Board and the appointing authority — Assessment of whether the facts complained of are established)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Bedin essentially seeks annulment of the decision of 23 December 2013 by which the European Commission imposed on him the disciplinary penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step for a 12-month period.

Held:      The action is dismissed. Mr Bedin is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Officials — Disciplinary measures — Penalty — Discretion of the appointing authority — Assessment of whether the facts which are the subject of disciplinary proceedings are established — Opinion of the Disciplinary Board — Scope — Limits

(Staff Regulations, Annex IX, Arts 18, 22 and 25)

There is no provision of the Staff Regulations which expressly provides that the opinion of the Disciplinary Board is binding on the appointing authority when it comes to assessing whether the facts complained of are established.

On the contrary, it follows from a systematic interpretation of the Staff Regulations, and in particular of Articles 18, 22 and 25 of Annex IX thereto, that the opinion of the Disciplinary Board, which is an advisory body, does not bind the appointing authority in that regard.

The appointing authority may thus consider and assess the facts which are the subject of disciplinary proceedings in different terms from those used in the opinion of the Disciplinary Board, provided that it gives a detailed statement of the reasons for its decision to do so.

(see paras 23, 24, 30)

See:

Judgment in F. v Commission, 228/83, EU:C:1985:28, para. 16

Order in Di Rocco v ESC, T‑8/92, EU:T:1992:122, para. 28