ACTIVITY REPORT
OF THE INVESTIGATION AND DISCIPLINARY OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSION
(IDOC)
2011
The Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) was established by a
Commission Decision of 19 February 20021.
The first task of the Office is to carry out impartial administrative inquiries with a view to
establishing whether potential breaches of the Staff Regulations have occurred.
The Office also carries out, under mandate from the Appointing Authority (AA), preliminary
hearings prior to the opening of disciplinary procedures which allow the officials concerned to
comment on the facts of their case following an inquiry by IDOC or OLAF or where the facts
have been sufficiently established.
In addition, the Office conducts disciplinary procedures on behalf of the AA.
The Office's workload therefore depends on the number of mandates for inquiries and
preliminary hearings issued by the AA as well as the number of disciplinary procedures
opened as a result of those inquiries and hearings. The statistical data at the end of this report
summarise the division of the workload of IDOC during 2011.
The facts examined or followed up are extremely diverse and vary from year to year. During
2011, the Office dealt
inter alia with cases of undue financial benefits, alleged harassment,
situations of conflict of interest, acceptance of unauthorised gifts, unauthorised external
activities, improper use of the Commission's informatics, electronic and telephone equipment,
inappropriate use of the Commission's internal mail system, false declarations of mission
expenses, unjustified absences, false declarations of medical expenses, behaviour constituting
a penal offence and inappropriate behaviour with respect to the high standards of ethics and
integrity expected of staff members of the Commission, including in their private lives.
In carrying out its mission, the Office operates in liaison with different services of the
Directorate General for Human Resources & Security (DG HR) and with other Directorates
General. In certain cases those services are the source of the administrative inquiries carried
out by IDOC. This includes in particular the Security Directorate of DG HR, DG HR.D.2
(Appeals and Case Monitoring) with regard to complaints and requests for assistance in cases
of harassment, and the PMO with regard to rights to financial allowances or for determining
whether invalidity should be granted on professional grounds. In some cases, the Directorates
General refer cases to IDOC leading to the opening of an inquiry or a pre-disciplinary
procedure. Examples include cases of irregular absence or improper use of the Commission's
internet system.
1 Replaced by final decision C (2004) 1588 of 28 April 2004 laying down general executive measures relating to
inquiries and disciplinary procedures. For further information regarding past activities and IDOC procedures,
see http://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/hr_admin/en/idoc/Pages/index.aspx
1
IDOC is also in regular contact with OLAF, either to determine which of these two offices
will conduct a potential inquiry, or to carry out the appropriate disciplinary follow-up of an
OLAF investigation.
IDOC also works in close cooperation with DG HR.B2 (Recruitment and end of service) for
cases concerning temporary or contractual agents. The administration is entitled to dismiss an
agent
with notice, who has committed an offence serious enough to result in a breakdown of
the relationship of trust between them and the institution2. The administration can also
terminate the contract of a temporary staff member
without notice on disciplinary grounds in
serious cases of failure to comply with obligations under the Conditions of Employment of
other Servants of the Commission (CEOS)3. In addition, a contract must be terminated if,
when taking up a job, a staff member deliberately submitted false information either as to
professional ability or the requirements of Article 12(2) of the CEOS and where this false
information was a determining factor in his or her engagement4. In the latter cases, the
contract is terminated after the disciplinary procedure has been followed under Annex IX of
the Staff Regulations.
ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES
NEW INQUIRIES
1.
8 mandated inquiries referred to IDOC in 2011
In the course of 2011, the Director-General of DG HR in her capacity as AA, mandated IDOC
to conduct
8 administrative inquiries. These inquiries gave rise to
67 hearings, comprising
both officials/agents concerned by the inquiries and witnesses.
Following receipt of the mandates for inquiry, the staff members concerned in the case are
informed of the opening of the inquiry and of its purpose. They are also informed at the end of
the inquiry of the provisional conclusions arrived at by the IDOC investigators and are invited
to submit any comments on the facts before the final inquiry report is transmitted to the AA.
2.
The facts in question
Of the 8 new inquiries opened in 2011:
-
3 concerned allegations of
psychological harassment
These cases involved more than 40 hearings of witnesses in order to determine whether or not
the alleged behaviour could constitute harassment in the sense of Article 12a of the Staff
Regulations.
2 Judgement of the General Court T-283/08P of 7 July 2011, Longinidis v. Cedefop, not yet published. In 2011,
2 contracts were terminated, one for false declarations in connection with a medical visit prior to recruitment,
the other for production of a falsified document.
3 Articles 49 and 119 of the CEOS.
4 Articles 50 and 119 of the CEOS
2
The cases originated from requests for assistance made under Article 24 of the Staff
Regulations.
-
2 inquiries related to the potential criminal behaviour of an official which, if proven, is
contrary to the obligation to
"refrain from any action or behaviour which might reflect
adversely upon his position" under Article 12 of the Staff Regulations.
-
1 inquiry related to the alleged inappropriate
use of the Commission's internet
access which was picked up by the service of the user in question.
-
1 inquiry related to alleged
irregularities and acts of favouritism relating to
internal competitions.
-
1 inquiry related to the ethical conduct of officials, suspected of having benefited from
various
favours from companies submitting bids for tenders to the Commission. The file
was transmitted to IDOC by OLAF for follow-up and potential disciplinary action.
COMPLETED INQUIRIES
1.
14 administrative inquiries completed by IDOC in 2011
During 2011,
IDOC completed 14 administrative inquiries with a final report transmitted
to the AA, the majority of which had been opened in the preceding year.
2.
The facts concerned
The alleged facts investigated concerned:
-
exercising external activities without prior authorisation as required by Article 12b of
the Staff Regulations;
-
publication of texts relating to activities of the Union without prior notification to
the AA in violation of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations;
-
failure to declare the gainful activity of one's spouse in violation of Article 13 of
the Staff Regulations;
- allegations
of
psychological harassment arising from a request for assistance under
Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;
-
misuse of sick leave;
-
a malicious accusation concerning acts of favouritism;
-
acceptance of favours from a company participating in a call for tenders;
-
criminal behaviour likely to reflect adversely on the position of the official
concerned.
3
On the basis of the conclusions of the inquiries, the AA decided in
8 cases, to close the case
without further action because the facts were not proven, and informed both the officials
concerned and the witnesses of the outcome.
In 3 cases, the AA decided, in view of the conclusions of the inquiries, to hear the
persons concerned under Article 3 of Annex IX of the Staff Regulations, considering that
the facts established by the inquiry could constitute disciplinary breaches5.
3.
The length of inquiries
The length of inquiries conducted by IDOC depends on many factors, notably the complexity
of the case, the number of hearings to be carried out and the availability of the people to be
heard.
The average length of inquiries conducted by IDOC in 2011 was 9 months6.
HEARINGS PRIOR TO THE OPENING
OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES
The hearing prior to the possible opening of a disciplinary procedure, under Article 3 of
Annex IX of the Staff Regulations, is intended to enable the AA to decide whether to close
the file without further action, to issue a warning to the staff member concerned or to open
disciplinary proceedings against them with or without referral to the Disciplinary Board.
The hearing takes place following the conclusions of a report on the inquiry conducted either
by IDOC or by OLAF. The hearing may also be held without any prior inquiry where the
facts are sufficiently established. Before being heard, the staff member is granted access to all
the evidence in his/her file in order to be able to present any elements which could exonerate
him or her or could otherwise lead the AA to decide not to open a disciplinary case, even
where breaches may have been established.
1.
45 mandates and 37 hearing reports
During 2011 IDOC received
45 mandates from the AA to conduct hearings under Article 3
of Annex IX of the Staff Regulations and transmitted
37 hearing reports to the AA.
In 6 cases, the file was closed without further action. In 10 cases, the Director-General of
DG HR, in her capacity as AA, decided to address a warning to the staff member
concerned and in 11 cases decided to open disciplinary proceedings7. In one case, the
decision was taken by the Vice-President responsible for Human Resources, in accordance
with the AA Tables8. This warning, which does not constitute a disciplinary sanction, is
5 In 3 other cases the follow-up decision was taken in 2012.
6 This represents the actual duration of the inquiry, from the conferring of the mandate to IDOC until the
transmission of the final report to the AA, that is the time during which the progress of the inquiry was not
interrupted by any legitimate cause for suspension, such as the non-availability of the person concerned or any
essential witness for medical reasons.
7 In 10 cases the follow-up decision was taken in 2012.
8 http://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/infoadm/en/2010/Pages/ia10013.aspx
4
placed in the staff member's personal file for a period of 18 months, after which period they
may request its deletion.
Apart from the possibility of sanctioning a statutory breach with a warning, the AA can also
send a letter of admonition to any staff member, or former member, where their behaviour
gives rise to criticism but is not serious enough to justify the opening of a procedure under
Article 3 of Annex IX of the Staff Regulations9.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES
On the basis of the results of the hearing under Article 3 of Annex IX of the Staff Regulations,
the AA may decide that the breach of statutory obligations justifies opening a disciplinary
procedure.
If the proposed sanction does not have a financial impact (written warning or reprimand), the
case is not referred to the Disciplinary Board. Where the sanction under consideration would
have a temporary or long term impact on the career of the official in question (suspension of
step advancement, relegation in step, downgrading, classification in a lower function group or
removal from post) or would affect the retirement pension or invalidity allowance (temporary
reduction), the AA must consult the Disciplinary Board, which is required to give a reasoned
opinion as to whether the facts are established, and any subsequent potential penalty.
The sanction imposed must be proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct. The AA
takes into account all mitigating or aggravating circumstances and comes to its decision with
particular regard to the points set out in Article 10 of Annex IX of the Staff Regulations
(nature of the misconduct; the extent of the damage to the integrity, reputation or interests of
the Institution; the degree of intent or negligence; motives leading to the breach; the grade and
seniority of the official; their personal responsibility; the level of their duties and
responsibilities; possible re-offending and of the conduct of the official throughout their
career).
1.
Disciplinary procedures opened in 2011
The AA opened 15 disciplinary procedures against the staff member concerned, 8 of
which were referred to the Disciplinary Board10.
2.
Disciplinary procedures completed in 2011
In 2011,
20 disciplinary sanctions were imposed. In 13 of these cases, the Director-
General of DG HR, in her capacity as AA, issued a written warning or reprimand for the
misconduct.
In 7 other cases, the "tripartite" AA, consisting of the Director-General of DG
HR, the Director-General of the official concerned and a third Director-General11 designated
by the Secretary General,
decided, following a procedure before the Disciplinary Board, to
impose sanctions ranging from relegation in step to dismissal or termination of contract.
9 In 2011, two letters of admonition were addressed to former officials for non-declaration of external activities
undertaken after cessation of functions.
10 1 of these procedures led to two hearings before the disciplinary board
11 Or Deputy Director General.
5
3.
The duration of disciplinary procedures
The length of disciplinary procedures varies according to whether or not they involve referral
to the Disciplinary Board. The average length of disciplinary procedures closed in 2011 was
12 months without referral to the Disciplinary Board, and 17 months with referral12.
THE FACTS FOR WHICH A SANCTION WAS IMPOSED
Disclosing information which has not been rendered public and accepting gifts without
prior authorisation
An official shall refrain from any unauthorised disclosure of information received in the
line of duty, unless that information has already been made public or is accessible to the
public13.
Members of staff must not accept, without prior authorisation, an award, a medal a favour,
a gift or remuneration of any kind14.
An official was dismissed and his pension rights reduced to the minimum subsistence
level for 20 years (the combination of two sanction decisions)
for having received gifts and
other favours of considerable value from various stakeholders in the industrial sector in
which
he exercised his duties. This same official had regularly provided these entities, outside of
the Commission, with confidential information or information which had not been made
public, which he had obtained in the context of his work.
The AA imposed a heavy sanction for this flagrant and repeated breach of the duty of loyalty.
Judicial proceedings have been brought against this official for passive corruption. These
parallel penal proceedings did not, however, prevent a sanction from being imposed for facts
admitted by the official and established to the requisite standard of proof required in the
disciplinary procedure.
Facts constituting a penal offence
Facts constituting a penal offence, established by a national jurisdiction, may lead to
disciplinary proceedings against the offender, even when these facts are not linked to the
exercise of duties and were committed before recruitment.
The invalidity allowance of a former official was reduced by 250€ a month for five years
for having been found guilty of a serious penal offence committed before his
recruitment. Due to the excessive length of the case the national authority could no longer
convict the offender. In spite of this, a disciplinary procedure was opened, since the facts were
established and their serious nature harmed the image and reputation of the institution and its
12 This represents the total length of the disciplinary procedure, from its opening to final closing (sanction
decision or closure without further action).
13 Article 17 of the Staff Regulations
14 Article 11 of the Staff Regulations
6
personnel. The AA did not follow the opinion of the Disciplinary Board, which considered
that facts committed prior to recruitment could not be sanctioned by any disciplinary measure.
The AA considered that the date when the facts had been committed was not the determining
factor since the case had become a matter of public knowledge after the official entered into
service.
False declarations
False declarations made to obtain a financial benefit constitute behaviour which reflects
adversely on the position of an official15 and an act of disloyalty against the institution16.
Two former officials were sanctioned by a reduction of their invalidity allowances for
having made false declarations in order to benefit unduly from the weighting allowance
applicable to the United Kingdom, which they declared to be their principal place of
residence since going on invalidity. In addition, the falsely claimed allowances were fully
recovered.
In both cases the officials concerned went on invalidity before 1 May 2004. The previous
version of the Staff Regulations provided that the retirement pension or invalidity allowance
be subject to a weighting at a rate fixed for the country where the recipient proved he had his
residence17 and that it was their responsibility to provide proof of such residence18. The
jurisprudence specifies that the residence to be taken into consideration is the place where the
former official has fixed his centre of interests with a view to establishing a stable and durable
place of residence.
Contrary to the declarations sent to the administration and the documents produced to support
them, nothing demonstrated that the individuals in question effectively resided in the United
Kingdom during all or part of the period in question.
One of the two former officials, who had in fact never fixed his centre of interests in the
United Kingdom,
had his invalidity allowance reduced to the subsistence level for 20
years, as there were no mitigating circumstances.
The invalidity allowance of the second person, who did not have his centre of interests in
the United Kingdom for a certain part of the period in question,
was reduced by 1500€ per
month for 5 years. The AA did not follow the opinion of the Disciplinary Board which had
recommended a lighter sanction over a shorter period. The person concerned had, in fact,
provided a series of false declarations not only with regard to his effective place of residence
but also with regard to the reimbursement of removal expenses of his partner. He had
therefore demonstrated a persistent intention to profit from undue allowances and to produce
forged documents in order to obtain these allowances.
In a third case, the
false declarations by a temporary agent made in order to obtain the
expatriation allowance (16% of the basic salary) instead of foreign-residence allowance (4%
of the basic salary)
led to the termination of his contract without notice. This decision,
15 Article 12 of the Staff Regulations
16 Article 11 of the Staff Regulations
17 Article 82, 1st paragraph, 2nd indent of the former Regulations.
18 Article 43 of Annex VIII of the former Regulations.
7
taken following a procedure that involved a referral to the Disciplinary Board19, sanctioned
the breach of the duty of loyalty. There were no mitigating circumstances.
False declaration of mission expenses
An official who had made a
false declaration in order to speed up the reimbursement of
his mission expenses was sanctioned by a
reprimand (
article 9, 1st paragraph, letter b) of Annex IX
of the Staff Regulations). Although a false declaration constitutes a serious breach likely to be
sanctioned heavily, the absence of financial damage resulting from the declaration, and the
difficult personal and family circumstances of the official in question led to the relatively light
sanction in this particular case.
Irregular medical expenses claims
An official received a warning for having claimed the reimbursement of hospital
expenses that were not yet paid. By signing the reimbursement request the official confirms
that the claim is correct and that the expenses involved have been paid. An incorrect statement
engages the responsibility of their author and exposes him/her to potential disciplinary action
for breach of duty of loyalty (Article 11 of the Staff Regulations). In this particular case, no
fraudulent intent was established and the family circumstances of the individual could
partially explain the delay before the individual finally settled the expenses in question.
Taking these circumstances into consideration the AA decided not to open disciplinary
proceedings in this case.
Misuse of the Commission mail service
The Commission mail service is for the dispatch and distribution of the official mail of the
institution.
Outgoing private mail is allowed on an occasional basis but it must always carry the correct
postage and be clearly addressed and the sender's address must be on the back of the
envelope20.
An official was sanctioned by a downgrading of one grade (
article 9, 1st paragraph, letter f) of
Annex IX of the Staff Regulations) for having sent, over an extended period, a large number of
private packages on behalf of a third party at the Commission's expense. The
Disciplinary Board had recommended a lighter sanction, namely a relegation of two steps.
Due to the seriousness of the misconduct, the AA decided to impose a sanction which had a
heavier financial impact on the individual, mainly because the functions he exercised meant
that he was very well aware of the rules regarding the use of the Commission’s mail services.
In addition, under Article 22 of the Staff Regulations, this official was required to pay back
the full amount of the financial loss suffered by the Commission21.
19 Article 49 of the CEOS.
20 Administrative Notice n° 74-2003 of 11 November 2003.
21 The requirement of an official to make good any damage suffered by the institution as a result of serious
misconduct on his part (Article 22) is to be distinguished from the recovery of sums overpaid (Article 85)
which applies where the recipient was aware that there was no due reason for the payment or where the fact
of the overpayment was patently such that he could not have been unaware of it.
8
Inappropriate use of the I.C.T. services of the Commission
Commission computer equipment, email, internet access, telephones, mobile phones and
fax equipment (I.C.T.) are intended for official use. Private use of this equipment is allowed
if it is on a purely occasional basis and does not amount to extensive use of the equipment
for private purposes. The Commission's I.C.T. services may not be used for illegal or
irregular purposes, in a way that might disrupt the functioning of the service itself or in a
manner contrary to the interests of the Union22.
2 officials were sanctioned by a
reprimand (
article 9, 1st paragraph, letter b) of Annex IX of the Staff
Regulations) for having made improper use of informatics equipment, put at their disposal for
professional purposes.
One case concerned the
downloading of films for private use. The other case involved
frequent visits to
internet sites and downloading material, much of which was of a
pornographic nature. As regards content, the Practical Guide on ethical matters and the
behaviour of staff, available on My IntraComm, expressly states that "the Commission's
server may not be used to consult websites which have content which is shocking, racist,
discriminatory, sexually explicit or any other improper sites".
Non-authorised external activities
All members of staff who wish to take part in external activities must obtain the prior
permission of the AA23.
Commission decision C (2004) 1597 of 28 April 2004 relating to external activities and
assignments24 defines external activities as "all (other) activity, paid or unpaid, that is of an
occupational character or goes otherwise beyond what can be reasonably considered as a
leisure activity".
During 2011,
11 officials and 1 contractual agent were sanctioned (one case involving a
referral to the Disciplinary Board), for failing to ask for prior authorisation for external
activities. In all of these cases the activity was for companies or commercial bodies and as
such would not have been authorised if the people concerned had asked for permission25.
A reprimand was imposed on one contractual agent for having regularly and over a long
period of time exercised an external activity, which was remunerated above the annual
maximum ceiling of 4500 euros as set out in the Commission Decision of 2004.
The financial difficulties of this staff member were considered to be mitigating circumstances
together with the fact that he only became aware of his statutory obligations at a late stage.
22 Administrative Notice n° 45-2006 of 15 September 2006.
23 Article 12b of the Staff Regulations, articles 11, 54 and 81 of the CEOS.
24 Administrative Notice n° 85-2004 of 29 June 2004
25 Article 8 of the decision C(2004) 1597 of 28 April 2004: "Permission shall not be granted for assignments or
activities for firms and companies whose objects are commercial, even if the official's relationship with the
company or firm in question entails no remuneration or purely nominal remuneration".
9
Training or presentations given in the context of seminars organised by a commercial
organisation, constitutes an external activity26 that requires prior authorisation from the
AA in accordance with Article 12b of the Staff Regulations.
This prior authorisation must even be requested if there is no contractual relationship with the
organisation in question or no remuneration or other benefit gained in connection with the
services offered. This duty applies irrespective of the content of the training and
presentations, their link with the functions of the person concerned, the public to which they
are addressed, their frequency and the time and place where they are given.
This applies equally when a staff union cooperates in a training course with a commercial
organisation.. Failure to respect this obligation can lead to a disciplinary procedure and a
possible sanction, in line with the relevant facts and circumstances of the case.
9 officials were sanctioned for having infringed their statutory obligations in this way:
6
were sanctioned by a written warning (article 9, 1st paragraph, letter a°) of Annex IX of the Staff
Regulations), and
3 by a non-disciplinary warning (
article 3, 1st paragraph, letter b) of Annex IX of
the Staff Regulations). The decision not to impose a disciplinary sanction on these three officials
was based in particular on the minor or isolated character of the breach and the absence of any
intended harm to the integrity, reputation or interests of the institution.
An official who actively took part in the management, supervision and the promotion of
a pay internet site was sanctioned by reclassification into a lower function group (AD to
AST) (article 9, 1st paragraph, letter g) of Annex IX of the Staff Regulations) following a procedure
before the Disciplinary Board. The person concerned, who had obtained prior authorisation
from his former institution for publishing on the site, was giving the impression of complying
with the rules, but was in reality managing and promoting the site, while also publicising his
own publications. By using his official status, the individual also gave the false impression
that this site, of a purely commercial nature, enjoyed the backing of the Commission.
Non-authorised publications
All members of staff who have the intention to publish or to have published any paper on a
subject that concerns the activities of the Commission must inform the AA in advance27.
A disciplinary procedure before the Disciplinary Board was opened against an official
for
having failed to previously inform the AA of articles published during a period of leave
on personal grounds. The AA followed the opinion of the Disciplinary Board and imposed
a
reprimand (article 9, 1st paragraph, letter b) of Annex IX of the Staff Regulations) on the official in
question. The fact that the activities exercised by the individual during his absence on
personal leave, of which the AA had been duly informed, involved regular publishing was
seen as a mitigating circumstance, as was the absence of any personal benefit from these
publications.
26 Article 1, paragraph 3 of the Commission decision C (2004) 1597 of 28 April 2004 (Administrative Notice n°
85-2004 of 29 June 2004), defines an external activity as "
all other activity ,paid or unpaid, that is of an
occupational character or goes otherwise beyond what can be reasonably considered as a leisure activity"
27 Article 17(a), paragraph 2 of the Staff Regulations
10
Public accusations and insults against an official
Members of staff must abstain from any action or behaviour which might reflect adversely
on their position28.
An official was sanctioned by a
reprimand (
article 9, 1st paragraph, letter b) of Annex IX of the Staff
Regulations) for having repeatedly sent emails to a large number of recipients both internal
and external to the Commission, containing accusations of an abusive and vexatious
character against another official. These accusations consisted of reiterating, without any
additional justification, allegations and administrative complaints that had already been the
subject of a definitive decision. This behaviour, intended to discredit the official concerned,
was found to be contrary to Article 12 of the Staff Regulations.
Non-respect of financial procedures
Two officials in active service and two retired officials received a warning for having
made irregular use of a framework contract for building renovation works. The persons
concerned were all involved in different capacities in the financial circuit, from the budgetary
commitment to the payment of the expenses. The Financial Irregularities Panel was consulted
on the financial irregularities committed and the responsibility of the individuals, and
concluded that they were guilty of gross negligence. The AA was, however, invited to take
into account the small amounts involved, the absence of any personal gain of the persons
concerned and the systemic shortcomings of the control mechanisms in place at the time.
These considerations, and the circumstance that the irregularities took place a long time ago,
led the AA not to open disciplinary procedures against the four officials and former officials
in question.
Theft on Commission premises
A contractual agent received a
warning after taking food from a Commission kitchen for
his own personal consumption. The very limited value of the items in question and the
regret expressed by this agent led the AA to not open disciplinary proceedings in this case.
Unjustified absence
All members of staff, who are unable to work because of sickness or an accident, must
notify the institution as soon as possible and must provide a medical certificate as from the
fourth day of their absence. This medical certificate must be sent in, at the latest, on the
fifth day of their absence. Failing this, and unless failure to send the certificate is due to
reasons beyond their control, the absence is considered to be unjustified.
The unjustified absence will be deducted from the annual leave entitlement. In the case
where all annual leave has been taken, the staff member's remuneration will be stopped for
the corresponding period.
All unjustified absences can give rise to disciplinary procedures29.
A
warning was issued to
a contractual agent who had presented medical certificates
outside the time limit, retrospectively justifying repeated absences that had taken place
28 Article 12 of the Staff Regulations
29 Article 59 of the Staff Regulations
11
during the preceding two years. The fact that the absences in question, which had been
checked by the medical service, were justified on medical grounds, was taken into
consideration in the decision not to open disciplinary proceedings.
COMMUNICATION, TRAINING AND PREVENTION ACTIVITIES
The annual activity report of IDOC, disseminated to all the Commission services and
available on My IntraComm, is intended to inform staff of the activities of the Office. Its
purpose is also to make staff aware of the ethical rules and of the consequences that the
breaches of these rules had during the year.
In 2011 the Office also gave a number of presentations to individual Directorates General, to
agencies and to the EEAS.
IDOC was further involved in training sessions on disciplinary matters for information and
preventive purposes, including the training given to new officials and to officials leaving the
institution.
IDOC also helped draft and clarify the various rules on ethics, based on their experience in
conducting inquiries and disciplinary cases.
More information on IDOC's activities, including the activity reports from previous years, can
be found on the IDOC website:
http://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/hr_admin/en/idoc/Pages/index.aspx
12
Pending cases on 31/12/2011 = 97
38
40
30
20
16
13
13
10
7
10
0
Administrative
Art. 3
Disciplinary
National authorities
OLAF
Verifications
inquiries
procedures
Number of hearings in 2011
67
60
37
40
13
20
9
7
0
Administrative inquiries
Art. 3
Disciplinary Board
AA monoparty
AA triparty meetings
meetings
13
Number of procedures closed in 2011
50
42
40
30
20
20
20
14
10
0
Administrative inquiries
Art. 3
Disciplinary procedures
Cases closed without
follow up
New procedures opened in 2011
50
45
40
30
20
15
10
8
8
0
Administrative inquiries
Art. 3
Disciplinary procedures with
Disciplinary procedures without
referral to the Disciplinary Board referral to the Disciplinary Board
14