In Case 141/84 R
Henri de Compte, an official of the European Parliament, residing at 10 Avenue Guillaume, Luxembourg, represented by Gaston Vogel of the Luxembourg Bar,
European Parliament, represented by its Secretary-General, H J Opitz acting as Agent, assisted by M. Peter, Head of the Division for Legal and Administrative Affairs, and by R. Andersen of the Brussels Bar, 214 Avenue
Montjoie, 1180 Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Secretariat General of the European Parliament, Kirchberg,
APPLICATION to suspend the operation of the decision dated
Since the President of the Court of Justice was indisposed he assigned this application for the adoption of an interim measure to the President of the Third Chamber.
On
On
On
The Disciplinary Board met on several occasions between
On the latter date the Disciplinary Board proposed by three votes to two that Mr de Compte should be reprimanded. The two members who did not support such a measure were in favour of simply dismissing the charges against the official in question.
Pursuant to the final paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations Mr de Compte was given a hearing on
On
On
On
On
On
He submitted a complaint to the President of the European Parliament in which he argued that it was no longer appropriate simply to refer to the reasons given for the initial decision to remove him from his post since, in the meantime, the European Parliament had granted him a final discharge in respect of the financial year in question, thereby recognizing that his activities as accountant were correct and above criticism.
He brought an action before the Court for annulment of the aforementioned decision of
He applied for an interim order suspending the operation of that decision until the Court delivered judgment in the main action.
Article 91 (4) of the Staff Regulations provides that:
By a decision dated
Urgency is established since the downgrading is to take effect on The putting into effect of the disciplinary measure adopted in respect of the applicant would involve a monthly loss of BFR In that respect the applicant annexed to his application a statement of what his monthly finances would be from June 1984, should the operation of the contested decision not be suspended; that financial statement shows that, without taking into account ordinary living expenses, fixed outgoings would amount to BFR ... from an income reduced to BFR ..., that is to say a deficit of approximately BFR ... It also follows from the statement that Mr de Compte uses a substantial part of his salary to repay loans contracted for the purchase or repair of various apartments and houses owned by him. The applicant contends that a major reduction of his salary would prevent him from honouring his commitments and he produced a certificate from the Caisse Hypothecaire de Luxembourg dated The applicant also maintained that the damage would be irreparable in so far as if the disciplinary measure was put into effect the Grade A 3 post which he had held would become vacant and there was the possibility that it would be filled by another official before the Court's judgment was delivered.
The European Parliament takes the view that it would not cause irreparable damage to the official to put the contested disciplinary measure into effect. He would in fact remain in employment and he would receive the remuneration attaching to a Grade A 7/6 post, which is a reasonable salary.
According to the Parliament, if the applicant's arguments were accepted, every official in respect of whom a disciplinary measure having financial effects is adopted would be able to obtain from the Court of Justice a suspension of the operation of that measure because the putting into effect thereof would involve a reduction of his standard of living.
The European Parliament also contends that the statement of monthly finances produced in support of the application for the adoption of interim measures is not conclusive for two reasons :
First, the properties belonging to the applicant may well themselves produce sufficient income to cover the interest on the relevant loans and the repayment of the capital. Secondly, part of the expenses referred to by the applicant in his financial statement relates to assistance given by him voluntarily to his daughter and son-in-law, that is to say to members of his family who are no longer part of his household.
Finally, the Parliament maintains that if the Court gives judgment in favour of the applicant in the main action the effect of that judgment would be to reinstate Mr de Compte in his previous grade with payment of the arrears of salary for the whole of the period in question.
With regard, to the second argument submitted by the applicant in support of his contention that the damage would be difficult to repair, the Parliament replies that since the appointing authority is responsible for the proper organization of its departments it is always entitled to assign each member of it staff to any post corresponding to his grade and that no member of the staff has a right to retain his original post indefinitely.
Mr de Compte maintains first that at the preliminary hearing which constitutes the first stage of disciplinary proceedings and which is provided for by Article 87 of the Staff Regulations the appointing authority cannot replace itself with an official even if he is assigned the necessary powers.
Secondly, Mr de Compte contends that the principle of
He maintains, thirdly, that the same principle was also infringed by virtue of the fact that the Disciplinary Board heard the evidence of three witnesses in his absence.
Fourthly, he contends that the same principle was infringed by virtue of the fact that the Disciplinary Board refused to hear the evidence of witnesses called by the defence.
Fifthly, he contends that the same principle was infringed once again by virtue of the fact that the Disciplinary Board wrongly refused to suspend its investigations pending the result of an administrative inquiry conducted by the Committee on Budgetary Control.
Finally, the applicant submits that the decision of
The applicant alleges breach of the principle of
The final discharge granted by the European Parliament on
The six complaints made against Mr de Compte are based on a mistaken interpretation of the facts.
The disciplinary measure is manifestly disproportionate to the gravity of the offences with which Mr de Compte is charged, even if they can be proved, having regard to the numerous extenuating circumstances in his favour, in particular the administrative, physical and human environment in which he worked, as a result of which he was unable to discharge fully the responsibilities placed upon him.
The European Parliament limits itself in its observations with regard to the application for the adoption of interim measures to stating that it will respond to the various submissions in the course of the substantive action and that for the moment it merely indicates as follows :
That it disputes th alleged procedural irregularities raised by the applicant;
That the final discharge given to the applicant does not have the scope alleged by him.
The parties presented oral argument at a hearing on
On those grounds,
the President of the Third Chamber, acting on behalf of the President of the Court,
by way of interim decision,
hereby orders as follows :
Luxembourg,
J. A. Pompe
Deputy Registrar
Y. Galmot
President of the Third Chamber