Ceci est une version HTML d'une pièce jointe de la demande d'accès à l'information 'Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission'.

 
 
ACTIVITY REPORT OF  
THE INVESTIGATION AND DISCIPLINARY OFFICE OF THE COMMISSION 
(IDOC)  
 
2008 
 
IDOC in 2008 
INQUIRY ACTIVITIES   
What are they? 
The administrative inquiries conducted by IDOC are a fact-finding exercise intended to allow the 
appointing authority (AA) to assess any situation that could lead to possible disciplinary action. 
These inquiries by IDOC take account of all aggravating and extenuating factors, which means that 
all the facts are sought in an objective and impartial way. The inquiries are generally launched to 
check whether the conduct in question is a breach of the Staff Regulations, but experience shows 
that only a minority of these inquiries end up identifying breaches. Most detect no breach of the 
rules and are closed without further action.  
ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES OPENED  
17 administrative inquiries and 102 hearings 
The AA gave IDOC mandates to conduct 17 administrative inquiries, which gave rise to 102 
hearings  
to establish the facts and, if necessary, determine if there was any breach of the 
obligations to which officials and other agents of the Commission are bound.  
CONDUCT CONCERNED 
Physical aggression  
Unauthorised outside activity  
Unauthorised disclosure of confidential information  
Falsification and use of false documents  
Psychological harassment  
Irregularities in relation to a competition procedure 
Irregularities in relation to the payment phase of Community funds  
Mistreatment of children in a Commission crèche  
Improper language  
Irregular use of the diplomatic bag 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES CLOSED   
18 administrative inquiries and 17 files closed without further disciplinary action 
18 administrative inquiries produced a final report, which was submitted to the AA for 
appropriate action.  

In 17 cases, the AA decided that no charge could be brought against the official concerned and that 
the file therefore had to be closed without further disciplinary action. 
The duration of the administrative inquiries depends on various factors, such as the complexity of 
the case, the number of hearings to be conducted and the availability of the persons to be heard. 
Leaving aside all these differences, the average duration of the administrative inquiries closed 
during 2008 was 7.7 months1.
 This average is considered reasonable, but IDOC aims to reduce it, 
in particular by speeding up its investigations of the simplest cases.  
 
ACTIVITIES LINKED TO DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 
PRE-DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS 
24 mandates issued by the appointing authority 
IDOC received 24  mandates from the AA to carry out the preliminary hearing provided for in 
Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations before a decision is taken on whether to initiate 
disciplinary proceedings or not. The majority of these hearings followed a final inquiry report from 
OLAF or IDOC. In some cases, however, the facts had been established sufficiently to leave no 
need for an administrative inquiry. 
CONDUCT CONCERNED 
Unjustified absences  
Unauthorised outside activity  
Physical aggression  
Falsification and use of false documents  
Inappropriate behaviour and breach of the duty of loyalty  
Conflict of interest  
Psychological harassment  
Irregularities in the handling of medical expenses claims 
Irregularities in the management of contracts 
Improper language 
Irregular use of the diplomatic bag 
RESULTS 
3 cases closed without follow-up 
4 warnings 
In the light of the reports on the preliminary hearings carried out by IDOC, the AA decided to close 
3 cases without further action 
because no charge could be brought again the official concerned 
due either to lack of sufficient evidence of a breach of the Staff Regulations or to specific 
circumstances which could clear the person concerned. 
                                                 
1   This means the actual duration of the inquiry, from issuing the mandate to IDOC to transmission of the final 
inquiry report to the AA. The actual duration excludes any time during which the inquiry is suspended on 
legitimate grounds, such as unavailability for medical reasons of the person concerned or of a key witness. 


In 4 cases in 2008 the AA decided to issue a warning to the official concerned (in accordance with 
Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations). Although a warning is not a disciplinary penalty, it 
confirms a minor violation of the obligations under the Staff Regulations. It is recorded in the 
personnel file of the person concerned and remains on the record there for 18 months. 
Conduct leading to a warning 
Filing claims for undue reimbursement of medical expenses for a low amount 
Financial irregularities in award and performance of study contracts 
On-line advertising of consultancy services in a field of activities directly linked to the tasks 
performed by the member of staff in the department where he is employed 

Irregular use of the diplomatic bag to send undeclared personal belongings 
Filing claims for undue reimbursement of medical expenses for a low amount. This conduct was 
considered contrary to the obligations enshrined in Articles 11 and 12 of the Staff Regulations, 
which require officials to conduct themselves solely with the interests of the Communities in mind 
and to refrain from any action or behaviour which might reflect adversely on their position. The AA 
decided, however, not to open disciplinary proceedings against the official concerned because the 
medical claims in question concerned a very small amount (€150), which had been reimbursed, and 
the official concerned had committed no previous breaches of the Staff Regulations. 
Financial irregularities in award and performance of study contracts. The facts, which dated 
back to a dozen years earlier, had been investigated by OLAF, which found that the procedures 
established by the old Financial Regulation for selecting successful bidders and awarding contracts 
had not been fully observed. However, the AA decided not to open disciplinary proceedings against 
the official concerned because the facts dated back a long time, had no impact on the Community 
budget and had led to no personal advantage for the person concerned and also because the rules 
applicable at that time were not totally clear and were not backed up by a vade-mecum in the DG 
concerned. 
On-line advertising of consultancy services in a field of activities directly linked to the tasks 
performed by the member of staff in the department where he is employed.
  
This conduct by an 
agent in active employment, who was mentioning his status in his on-line CV,  was considered to 
reflect adversely on his position and, therefore, to be contrary to the obligation of loyalty which the 
first sentence of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations imposes on all officials vis-à-vis their institution 
and their hierarchy. However, the AA decided not to open disciplinary proceedings against the 
person concerned, considering the apology made by him and that the website in question had never 
really worked. 
Irregular use of the diplomatic bag to send undeclared personal belongings. This misuse of the 
immunity conferred on the diplomatic bag under the Vienna Convention of 18 April 1961, 
following reminders contained in several notes sent to Commission staff, would normally have 
triggered disciplinary proceedings due to breach of the obligation of loyalty provided for in the first 
sentence of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations. However, the AA considered that it was not 
appropriate to open a disciplinary proceeding against an official who had recently retired and whose 
conduct in the service had always been irreproachable. 
 


DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS OPENED AND CLOSED  
15 disciplinary proceedings, of which 8 before the Disciplinary Board 
Following the preliminary hearing provided for by Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, 
the AA decided, in 15 cases, to open disciplinary proceedings against the officials concerned, of 
which 8 were before the Disciplinary Board. 

 
CONDUCT CONCERNED 
Unjustified absences 
Unauthorised outside activity 
Physical aggression 
Inappropriate behaviour and breach of the duty of loyalty 
Conflict of interest 
Falsification and use of false documents 
Three  disciplinary proceedings opened in previous years  were closed in 2008, with a penalty 
(see below). 

One disciplinary proceeding against an official accused of psychological harassment was finally 
closed with a warning. In this case the AA chose not to impose a disciplinary measure due to the 
lack of sufficient evidence of behaviour falling within the definition of psychological harassment in 
Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations. However, the AA decided to issue a warning to the person 
concerned because of inappropriate conduct in his relationships with some of his colleagues. 
Another disciplinary proceeding, opened in 2007 against a probationer official, was closed 
without penalty in 2008, since the person concerned was not established after the probation period. 
The disciplinary proceeding had been opened following the arrest and conviction of the person 
concerned for offences linked to child pornography. Based on established case law, the conduct of 
an official during the probation period must be taken into account in assessing whether it is in the 
interest of the service to establish the person concerned. Since Article 27 of the Staff Regulations 
aims at “securing for the institution the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, 
efficiency and integrity (…)”
, the conduct to be taken into account for this purpose is not limited 
solely to the conduct of the probationer official during working hours. 
Based on Article 27 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, minor disciplinary measures such as 
written warnings are recorded in the personnel file of the individuals concerned for a three-year 
period, whereas more serious measures remain on the record there for six years. 
The duration of disciplinary proceedings depends on whether they involve the Disciplinary Board 
or not. This is required when the penalty envisaged entails financial consequences for the person 
concerned. The average length of disciplinary proceedings closed in 2008 was 15 months if the 
Disciplinary Board was not involved and 34.5 months if it was2. In two cases, this average duration 
was exceeded because of a parallel criminal prosecution for the same offences before a national 
court, as the AA cannot adopt a final decision until a final judgment has been given by the court 
hearing the case. 
                                                 
2    This means the actual duration of the procedure, from the time it is opened to the final decision closing it (imposing 
a penalty, issuing a warning or closing the procedure without further action). 


The lengthy duration of disciplinary proceedings is due to the procedural guarantees linked to 
legitimate exercise of the rights of defence. To ensure good administrative practice, in 2008 IDOC 
analysed the reasons for delays in the course of disciplinary proceedings, with the aim of 
eliminating or considerably shortening any unnecessary delays. To this end, changes were decided 
to facilitate tripartite AA meetings responsible for hearing the person concerned and deciding the 
appropriate penalty. This simplification will apply from 2009 on and should considerably shorten 
the average duration of disciplinary proceedings not involving the Disciplinary Board. 
DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS TAKEN 
3 disciplinary decisions 
The AA adopted 3 disciplinary decisions, ranging from a written warning to removal from post. 
CONDUCT SANCTIONED 
Failure to inform the AA of a conflict of interest 
False information provided at the time of recruitment and failure to inform the AA of a 
conflict of interest 

A prolonged irregular absence 
The failure to inform the AA of a conflict of interest was punished by a written warning to the 
chairperson of an evaluation committee who, in the course of a procurement procedure, participated 
in a selection process in which one of the bidders was a firm belonging to the chairperson’s partner. 
This omission, which occurred before the reform of the Staff Regulations, was considered contrary 
to Article 14 of the old version which stipulated that “Any official who, in the performance of his 
duties, is called upon to decide on a matter in the handling or outcome of which he has a personal 
interest such as to impair his independence shall inform the appointing authority.”
 In 2004 
Article 14 of the old version of the Staff Regulations was replaced by the new Article 11a. Since its 
content is in any event similar, the offence has therefore not disappeared and the AA was still 
empowered to punish it. 
The circumstances that, in this particular case, the person concerned had no right to vote and had 
participated neither in the opening of the submissions nor in the deliberations of the evaluation 
committee were not considered grounds to exonerate him. Instead, in the light of the established 
case law and bearing in mind the fundamental objectives of independence and integrity pursued by 
Article 14 of the Staff Regulations (old version) and the obligation incumbent on the official 
concerned to inform the AA as a precaution, that Article has wide scope. It covers any circumstance 
which an official called upon to decide on a case should reasonably understand as being of a nature 
which might appear, to any third party, to be a possible source of compromising his independence 
in that case. Therefore, the question whether the person concerned was actually able to influence 
the award of the contract or not was judged irrelevant. 
The facts that the firm known by the person concerned was not awarded the contract, that the 
offence had no financial impact, that the offence dated back a long way into the past and that the 
person concerned was no longer working explain the low level of the penalty imposed by the AA. 
False information provided at the time of recruitment and failure to inform the AA of a conflict 
of interest 
led the AA to downgrade one temporary agent by three steps


The temporary agent concerned had omitted, at the time of his recruitment, to declare his previous 
activities within a State security service. His previous employer had dismissed him for the same 
reason. 
In accordance with Article 50(1) of the conditions of employment of other servants, “The 
employment of a member of the temporary staff shall be terminated by the institution without notice 
if the authority referred to in the first paragraph of Article 6 finds: (a) that at the time of his 
engagement he deliberately furnished false information as to either his professional ability or (…) 
and (b) that the false information furnished was a determining factor in his being engaged.”
 
The Disciplinary Board considered, however, that even if the omission in question was equivalent 
to false information, as provided for in Article 50(1), it was not proven that, had that information 
been given to the authority authorised to conclude contracts, the authority would have not recruited 
the person concerned. Therefore, according to the Disciplinary Board, the conditions set out in 
Article 50(1) for terminating the contract of the person concerned were not met. 
The person concerned used to work on research projects in which the following companies were 
also participating: (i) as principal contractor, an enterprise in which his wife was working for the 
director and (ii) as sub-contractor, an enterprise in which he used to work before being recruited as 
a temporary agent. In this context, the person concerned had committed several irregularities, as 
pointed out by the Disciplinary Board, in management of the contracts and projects involving the 
two enterprises in question. 
In accordance with Article 49(1) of the conditions of employment of other servants, “… 
employment [of a temporary agent] may be terminated without notice on disciplinary grounds in 
serious cases of intentional or negligent failure of temporary staff to comply with their obligations 
….” 
 
The Disciplinary Board considered, however, that although this double conflict of interests was in 
breach of Article 14 of the old version of the Staff Regulations, this violation was not serious 
enough to warrant termination of the contract. In this context, the Disciplinary Board pointed to 
certain extenuating circumstances making a minor disciplinary penalty more appropriate, notably 
the lack of knowledge, on the part of the person concerned, of the financial management rules at 
that time, the fact that the offence dated back a long way into the past and the environment in which 
it had been committed. The AA considered it appropriate to share that opinion. 
A prolonged irregular absence led the AA to remove from post an official who had been absent 
from work, without explanation, for several years.  
The person concerned had stopped providing medical certificates and had no longer been in touch 
with the European Commission, without providing the slightest explanation, for a very long time. 
In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 60 of the Staff Regulations, he had forfeited his 
salary when his rights to leave had been used up. 
The decision to remove him from his post took into account the opinion of the Disciplinary Board 
and noted this persistent breach of the obligation of loyalty imposed by the first sentence of 
Article 11 of the Staff Regulations. 
 


OTHER ACTIVITIES   
TRAINING AND PREVENTION 
IDOC contributes to training on disciplinary matters for information and prevention purposes. In 
the course of 2008, IDOC participated in around ten training and prevention activities. 
ETHICS 
IDOC has contributed actively to implementation of the Communication on ethical matters in the 
Commission, adopted on 5 March 20083, in particular by coordinating and facilitating the network 
of ethics correspondents, whose first meeting was held on 3 October 2008 and attended by 
Vice President Kallas. 
 
 
 
 

                                                 
3      SEC (2008) 301. 


STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING IDOC’S ACTIVITIES IN 2008 
 
Pending cases on 31/12/2008 = 101
25
22
20
20
18
16
15
13
12
10
5
0
Administrative
Art. 3
Disciplinary
National authorities
OLAF
Administrative
inquiries
procedures
verifications
 
 
 
New  cases opened in 2008
24
25
20
17
15
15
10
5
0
Administrative inquiries
Art. 3
Disciplinary procedures
 
 
 


Number of hearings in 2008
102
105
85
65
45
22
25
10
9
5
Administrative inquiries
Art. 3
Disciplinary board
AA triparty meetings
-15
 
 
 
Number of cases closed in 2008
24
25
23
19
20
15
10
7
5
0
Administrative inquiries
Art. 3
Disciplinary procedures
Non case