Judgment_paragraph 8 · Bernard Connolly v European Commission (C-274/99 P)

8In particular, the Court of First Instance held as follows:44 The Court must also reject the applicant's argument that the appointing authority's report to the Disciplinary Board did not include the contents of the book among the facts complained of but was limited to referring to formal infringements of Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations. In that regard, it must be observed that the report indicated, without any ambiguity, that the contents of the book at issue, in particular its polemical nature, were among the facts alleged against the applicant. In particular, in paragraph 23 et seq. of the report, the appointing authority considered that there had been an infringement of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations on the grounds that “publication of the book in itself reflects on Mr Connolly's position as he has been head of the unit at the Commission... responsible for the matters recounted in the book” and, “furthermore, in the book, Mr Connolly makes certain derogatory and unsubstantiated attacks on Commissioners and other members of the Commission's staff in such a way as to reflect on his position and to bring the Commission into disrepute contrary to his obligations under Article 12.” The report went on to cite specifically certain statements made by the applicant in his book and the annex to the report included numerous extracts from it.45 It follows that, in accordance with Article 1 of Annex IX, the appointing authority's report apprised the applicant of the facts alleged against him with sufficient precision for him to be in a position to exercise his rights of defence.46 That interpretation is also borne out by the fact that, as is clear from the minutes of the applicant's hearing before it, the Disciplinary Board, on several occasions during the hearing, made its position clear regarding the purpose and content of his book.47 Furthermore, the applicant, at his final hearing before the appointing authority on 9 January 1996, neither contended that the Disciplinary Board's opinion was founded on complaints which ought to be regarded as new facts nor applied, as he was entitled to do under Article 11 of Annex IX, for the disciplinary proceedings to be reopened (see, to that effect, the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-549/93 D v Commission [1995] ECRSC I-A-13, II-43, paragraph 55).48 As to the applicant's argument that the report submitted to the Disciplinary Board did not refer to the fact that he had published an article on 6 September 1995 for the purpose of promoting his book or that he had taken part in a television broadcast on 26 September 1995, it need merely be noted that, contrary to the applicant's contention, the appointing authority had specifically referred to those facts in paragraph 19 of the report.49 Accordingly, the first part of the plea must be rejected.’