Report on the work of the Investigation and Disciplinary Office. Publication of disciplinary decisions

To promote prevention and increase transparency in disciplinary matters, and with the desire to maintain a high level of integrity and professional conduct in the European civil service, on 19 February 2002 the Commission adopted Decision C(2002)540 on the conduct of administrative inquiries and disciplinary proceedings.

That Decision set up the Investigation and Disciplinary Office, which took over the work of the former Unit ADMIN B9 (Disciplinary procedures and administrative enquiries).

One of the main points of this Decision is the need to promote prevention and increase the transparency of the disciplinary system. To that end, Article 12 of the Decision states that "Disciplinary decisions adopted by the appointing authority, or summaries thereof, shall be published once a year. The names of officials shall be removed, as shall all other information that might allow individual officials to be identified." Article 11 provides for a handbook detailing the rights and obligations of officials to be published, given to each member of staff, published on-line and regularly up-dated.

The publication of disciplinary decisions is an administrative practice which has not always been followed regularly.

This first report by the Office takes up this practice in the light of the Commission's recent decision and with the aim of increasing prevention and transparency. The figures given relate to 1998-2002 (up to 15 July 2002) so seeking to fill the gap in information and also give an account of the work of Unit ADMIN B9, which was operational from January 2001 and whose staff constituted the core of that of the Office when it was set up.

The Office/ADMIN B9 has so far dealt with a total of 120 cases, comprising
43 disciplinary procedures (29 still ongoing) and 77 administrative enquiries and verifications (18 still ongoing).

The data given below concern the disciplinary measures imposed by the appointing authority following the disciplinary procedure and other decisions not forming part of a disciplinary procedure but which were imposed following an administrative enquiry (admonitions).

• The disciplinary measures taken in 1998 concerned:

4 officials in Category	A
3 officials in Category	B
4 officials in Category	C

the results were as follows:

1 written warning
3 reprimands
1 relegation in step
4 removals from post (one removal from post was annulled by the Court of First Instance)
2 no action

Infringements:

Conflict of interest	1
Depraved behaviour within the family	1
Forgery and use of forged instruments (misuse of funds in one case)	2
Misuse of the Internet	1
Cheating in a competition	1
Unauthorised absence	1
Aggression	1
Theft	1
Unauthorised outside activity	1
Harassment	1

• The disciplinary measures taken in 1999 concerned:

6 officials in Category	A
2 officials in Category	B
3 officials in Category	C
1 official in Category	D

the results were as follows:

1 written warning
3 reprimands
2 relegations in step
2 removals from post
1 dismissal (Article 51)
3 no action

Infringements:

Striking and wounding	1
Paedophile pornography	1
Fraud, corruption	2
Failure to inform the hierarchical superior	1
Professional inadequacy	1
Failure to comply with the Financial Regulation	1
Conflict of interest	1
Fraud in a competition	1
Rape	2
Communication of Commission documents to the European Parliament	1

• The disciplinary measures taken in 2000 concerned:

3 officials in Category	A*
2 officials in Category	B
2 officials in Category	C

the results were as follows:

4 reprimands
1 relegation in step
1 deferment of advancement in step
2 removals from post (one removal from post was annulled by the Court of First Instance)

Infringements:

Favouritism, failure to comply with instructions from the hierarchy	1
Repeated unjustified absence	1
Conflict of interest, etc.	2
Theft	2
Harassment	1
Misuse of funds, abuse of confidence	1

• The disciplinary measures taken in 2001 concerned:

4 officials in Category	A
1 official in Category	LA
1 official in Category	B
1 official in Category	C

the results were as follows:

3 admonitions
1 written warning
1 reprimand
1 relegation by two steps
1 no action

Infringements:

Fraud	1
Paedophile pornography	1
Issue of a false document	1
Unpleasant remarks	1
Theft. Incompatible outside activity	1
Falsification of a payslip	1
Harassment	1

• The disciplinary measures taken up to 15 July 2002 concerned:

4 officials in Category	A
1 official in Category	LA
2 officials in Category	B
2 officials in Category	C
2 officials in Category	D

the results were as follows:

4 admonitions
1 reprimand
1 relegation in step
2 removals from post (one with application of Article 22)
2 no action

Infringements :

Unjustified absences	4
Undeclared outside activity	1
Misuse of funds. Forgery and use of forged documents	1
False statements	1
Forgery and use of forged documents	1
Threats, vandalism	1
Theft of bank card and code. Fraudulent use	1
Rape, attempted rape; misuse of title and functions	1

N.B. The attention of staff is drawn to the fact that the opening of disciplinary proceedings does not automatically imply that the person accused is guilty. The infringements in respect of which proceedings are begun must be proved by those proceedings and, if no action has been taken on certain apparently serious complaints or only minor penalties have been imposed, this is because the proceedings demonstrated that the accusations were either wholly or partially unfounded. No action might be taken on other matters even if the infringement was proved because it was found that the person accused had serious health problems requiring medical treatment and preventing the continuation of disciplinary proceedings.