{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-680-22-p-62022cj0680","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-680-22-p-62022cj0680)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-11-03","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:96c5d4","proof":"sha256:64cca16b5a2540c2b9550955b8ca85da8dba15e6eed915a1df8bb79eed7bd4bd","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"eu:c-680-22-p-62022cj0680","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"62022CJ0680","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"12 December 2024 (\n *1\n )","paragraphs":["para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18"]},{"title":"Judgment","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"1","paragraphs":["para_21"]},{"title":"Legal framework","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"2","paragraphs":["para_24","para_25"]},{"title":"3","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Article 12 of the Staff Regulations provides:","paragraphs":["para_28"]},{"title":"4","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Article 17a of the Staff Regulations provides in paragraph 1:","paragraphs":["para_31"]},{"title":"5","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Article 21 of the Staff Regulations reads:","paragraphs":["para_34","para_35"]},{"title":"6","paragraphs":["para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40"]},{"title":"7","paragraphs":["para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45"]},{"title":"8","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Article 2 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations provides:","paragraphs":["para_48","para_49","para_50"]},{"title":"9","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations provides:","paragraphs":["para_53"]},{"title":"(a)","paragraphs":["para_55"]},{"title":"(b)","paragraphs":["para_57"]},{"title":"(c)","paragraphs":["para_59"]},{"title":"(i)","paragraphs":["para_61"]},{"title":"(ii)","paragraphs":["para_63"]},{"title":"10","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Article 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations provides:","paragraphs":["para_66","para_67"]},{"title":"Background to the dispute","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"11","paragraphs":["para_70","para_71","para_72"]},{"title":"3","paragraphs":["para_74"]},{"title":"4","paragraphs":["para_76"]},{"title":"5","paragraphs":["para_78"]},{"title":"6","paragraphs":["para_80"]},{"title":"7","paragraphs":["para_82"]},{"title":"8","paragraphs":["para_84"]},{"title":"9","paragraphs":["para_86"]},{"title":"10","paragraphs":["para_88"]},{"title":"11","paragraphs":["para_90"]},{"title":"12","paragraphs":["para_92"]},{"title":"13","paragraphs":["para_94"]},{"title":"14","paragraphs":["para_96"]},{"title":"15","paragraphs":["para_98"]},{"title":"16","paragraphs":["para_100"]},{"title":"17","paragraphs":["para_102"]},{"title":"18","paragraphs":["para_104"]},{"title":"19","paragraphs":["para_106"]},{"title":"20","paragraphs":["para_108"]},{"title":"21","paragraphs":["para_110"]},{"title":"22","paragraphs":["para_112"]},{"title":"23","paragraphs":["para_114"]},{"title":"24","paragraphs":["para_116"]},{"title":"25","paragraphs":["para_118"]},{"title":"26","paragraphs":["para_120"]},{"title":"27","paragraphs":["para_122"]},{"title":"28","paragraphs":["para_124"]},{"title":"29","paragraphs":["para_126"]},{"title":"30","paragraphs":["para_128"]},{"title":"31","paragraphs":["para_130"]},{"title":"32","paragraphs":["para_132"]},{"title":"33","paragraphs":["para_134"]},{"title":"34","paragraphs":["para_136"]},{"title":"35","paragraphs":["para_138"]},{"title":"36","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"On 15 April 2020, the Director of FRA issued the decision rejecting the complaint.’","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The procedure before the General Court and the judgment under appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"12","paragraphs":["para_143"]},{"title":"13","paragraphs":["para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163"]},{"title":"14","paragraphs":["para_165"]},{"title":"Forms of order sought by the parties to the appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"15","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:","paragraphs":["para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176"]},{"title":"16","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"FRA contends that the Court of Justice should:","paragraphs":["para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182"]},{"title":"The appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The first ground of appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"17","paragraphs":["para_186"]},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"18","paragraphs":["para_189"]},{"title":"19","paragraphs":["para_191"]},{"title":"20","paragraphs":["para_193"]},{"title":"21","paragraphs":["para_195"]},{"title":"22","paragraphs":["para_197"]},{"title":"23","paragraphs":["para_199"]},{"title":"24","paragraphs":["para_201"]},{"title":"Assessment of the Court","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"25","paragraphs":["para_204"]},{"title":"26","paragraphs":["para_206"]},{"title":"27","paragraphs":["para_208"]},{"title":"28","paragraphs":["para_210"]},{"title":"29","paragraphs":["para_212"]},{"title":"30","paragraphs":["para_214"]},{"title":"31","paragraphs":["para_216"]},{"title":"32","paragraphs":["para_218"]},{"title":"33","paragraphs":["para_220"]},{"title":"34","paragraphs":["para_222"]},{"title":"35","paragraphs":["para_224"]},{"title":"36","paragraphs":["para_226"]},{"title":"37","paragraphs":["para_228"]},{"title":"38","paragraphs":["para_230"]},{"title":"39","paragraphs":["para_232"]},{"title":"The second ground of appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"40","paragraphs":["para_236"]},{"title":"41","paragraphs":["para_238"]},{"title":"42","paragraphs":["para_240"]},{"title":"43","paragraphs":["para_242"]},{"title":"44","paragraphs":["para_244"]},{"title":"45","paragraphs":["para_246"]},{"title":"46","paragraphs":["para_248"]},{"title":"47","paragraphs":["para_250"]},{"title":"48","paragraphs":["para_252"]},{"title":"49","paragraphs":["para_254"]},{"title":"Assessment of the Court","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"50","paragraphs":["para_257"]},{"title":"51","paragraphs":["para_259"]},{"title":"52","paragraphs":["para_261"]},{"title":"53","paragraphs":["para_263"]},{"title":"54","paragraphs":["para_265"]},{"title":"55","paragraphs":["para_267"]},{"title":"56","paragraphs":["para_269"]},{"title":"57","paragraphs":["para_271"]},{"title":"58","paragraphs":["para_273"]},{"title":"59","paragraphs":["para_275"]},{"title":"60","paragraphs":["para_277"]},{"title":"61","paragraphs":["para_279"]},{"title":"62","paragraphs":["para_281"]},{"title":"63","paragraphs":["para_283"]},{"title":"64","paragraphs":["para_285"]},{"title":"65","paragraphs":["para_287"]},{"title":"66","paragraphs":["para_289"]},{"title":"67","paragraphs":["para_291"]},{"title":"68","paragraphs":["para_293"]},{"title":"69","paragraphs":["para_295"]},{"title":"70","paragraphs":["para_297"]},{"title":"Third ground of appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"71","paragraphs":["para_301"]},{"title":"72","paragraphs":["para_303"]},{"title":"Assessment of the Court","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"73","paragraphs":["para_306"]},{"title":"74","paragraphs":["para_308"]},{"title":"Fourth ground of appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"75","paragraphs":["para_312"]},{"title":"76","paragraphs":["para_314"]},{"title":"77","paragraphs":["para_316"]},{"title":"78","paragraphs":["para_318"]},{"title":"79","paragraphs":["para_320"]},{"title":"80","paragraphs":["para_322"]},{"title":"Assessment of the Court","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"81","paragraphs":["para_325"]},{"title":"82","paragraphs":["para_327"]},{"title":"83","paragraphs":["para_329"]},{"title":"84","paragraphs":["para_331"]},{"title":"85","paragraphs":["para_333"]},{"title":"86","paragraphs":["para_335"]},{"title":"The fifth ground of appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"87","paragraphs":["para_339"]},{"title":"88","paragraphs":["para_341"]},{"title":"89","paragraphs":["para_343"]},{"title":"Assessment of the Court","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"90","paragraphs":["para_346"]},{"title":"91","paragraphs":["para_348"]},{"title":"92","paragraphs":["para_350"]},{"title":"The sixth, seventh and eighth grounds of appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"93","paragraphs":["para_354"]},{"title":"94","paragraphs":["para_356"]},{"title":"95","paragraphs":["para_358"]},{"title":"96","paragraphs":["para_360"]},{"title":"97","paragraphs":["para_362"]},{"title":"98","paragraphs":["para_364"]},{"title":"Assessment of the Court","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"99","paragraphs":["para_367"]},{"title":"100","paragraphs":["para_369"]},{"title":"101","paragraphs":["para_371"]},{"title":"102","paragraphs":["para_373"]},{"title":"103","paragraphs":["para_375"]},{"title":"104","paragraphs":["para_377"]},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"105","paragraphs":["para_380"]},{"title":"106","paragraphs":["para_382"]},{"title":"On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby:","paragraphs":["para_384"]},{"title":"Dismisses the appeal;","paragraphs":["para_386","para_387"]},{"title":"Jarukaitis","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Regan","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Csehi","paragraphs":["para_391"]},{"title":"A. Calot Escobar","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Registrar","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"K. Lenaerts","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"President","paragraphs":["para_396"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"62022CJ0680","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"12 December 2024 (\n *1\n )","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"(Appeal – Civil service – Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union – Members of the temporary staff – Disciplinary proceedings – Administrative investigation – Concept of ‘plagiarism’ – Appointment by the appointing …","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"In Case C‑680/22 P,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 4 November 2022,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"DD , represented by N. Lorenz, Rechtsanwältin,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"the other party to the proceedings being:","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) , represented initially by M. O’Flaherty, and subsequently by S. Rautio, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt,","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"defendant at first instance,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"composed of I. Jarukaitis, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, E. Regan and Z. Csehi (Rapporteur), Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Advocate General: P. Pikamäe,","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"having regard to the written procedure,","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 7 December 2023,","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"gives the following","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"Judgment","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"1","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"By his appeal, DD seeks to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 September 2022, DD v FRA ( T‑470/20 , the judgment under appeal, EU:T:2022:511 ), by which that court dismissed his action seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the European Union Agency for …","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Legal framework","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"The first paragraph of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) provides:","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"‘An official shall carry out his duties and conduct himself solely with the interests of the [European] Union in mind. He shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government, authority, organisation or person outside his institution. He shall carry out the duties assigned to him objectively, impartially and in keeping with his duty of loyalty to the [European] Union.’","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"Article 12 of the Staff Regulations provides:","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"‘An official shall refrain from any action or behaviour which might reflect adversely upon his position.’","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"Article 17a of the Staff Regulations provides in paragraph 1:","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"‘An official has the right to freedom of expression, with due respect to the principles of loyalty and impartiality.’","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"Article 21 of the Staff Regulations reads:","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"‘An official, whatever his rank, shall assist and tender advice to his superiors; he shall be responsible for the performance of the duties assigned to him.","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"An official in charge of any branch of the service shall be responsible to his superiors in respect of the authority conferred on him and for the carrying out of instructions given by him. The responsibility of his subordinates shall in no way release him from his own responsibilities.’","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"Title VI of the Staff Regulations is entitled ‘Disciplinary measures’. Title VI includes Article 86 of the Staff Regulations, which provides:","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"‘1.   Any failure by an official or former official to comply with his obligations under these Staff Regulations, whether intentionally or through negligence on his part, shall make him liable to disciplinary action.","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"2.   Where the Appointing Authority or [the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF)] becomes aware of evidence of failure within the meaning of paragraph 1, they may launch administrative investigations to verify whether such failure has occurred.","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"3.   Disciplinary rules, procedures and measures and the rules and procedures covering administrative investigations are laid down in Annex IX.’","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"Article 1 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, entitled ‘Disciplinary proceedings’, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"‘1.   Whenever an investigation by OLAF reveals the possibility of the personal involvement of an official, or a former official, of an institution, that person shall rapidly be informed, provided this is not harmful to the investigation. In any event, conclusions referring by name to an official ma …","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"2.   In cases that demand absolute secrecy for the purposes of the investigation and requiring the use of investigative procedures falling within the remit of a national judicial authority, compliance with the obligation to invite the official to comment may, in agreement with the Appointing Authority, be deferred. In such cases, no disciplinary proceedings may be initiated before the official has been given a chance to comment.","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"3.   If, following an OLAF investigation, no case can be made against an official about whom allegations have been made, the investigation in question shall be closed, with no further action taken, by decision of the Director of OLAF, who shall inform the official and his institution in writing. The official may request that this decision be inserted in his personal file.’","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"Article 2 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations provides:","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"‘1.   The rules set out in Article 1 of this Annex shall apply, with any necessary changes, to other administrative enquiries carried out by the Appointing Authority.","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"2.   The Appointing Authority shall inform the person concerned when the investigation ends, and shall communicate to him the conclusions of the investigation report and, on request and subject to the protection of the legitimate interests of third parties, all documents directly related to the allegations made against him.","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations provides:","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"‘On the basis of the investigation report, after having notified the official concerned of all evidence in the files and after hearing the official concerned, the Appointing Authority may:","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"(a)","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"decide that no case can be made against the official, in which case the official shall be informed accordingly in writing; or","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"(b)","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"decide, even if there is or appears to have been a failure to comply with obligations, that no disciplinary measure shall be taken and, if appropriate, address a warning to the official; or","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"(c)","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"in the case of failure to comply with obligations within the meaning of Article 86 of the Staff Regulations:","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"(i)","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"decide to initiate the disciplinary proceedings provided for in Section 4 of this Annex, or","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"(ii)","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"decide to initiate disciplinary proceedings before the Disciplinary Board.’","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"Article 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations provides:","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"‘1.   After hearing the official, the Appointing Authority shall take its decision as provided for in Articles 9 and 10 of this Annex within two months of receipt of the opinion of the Board. Reasons must be given for the decision.","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"2.   If the Appointing Authority decides to close the case without imposing any disciplinary penalty, it shall so inform the official concerned in writing without delay. The official concerned may request that this decision be inserted in his personal file.’","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"Background to the dispute","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"The background to the dispute is set out in paragraphs 2 to 36 of the judgment under appeal as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"‘2","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"The applicant was recruited on 1 August 2000 by the Authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (“the AECC”) of a body of the European Union, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now FRA, as a member of the temporary staff within the meaning of Article 2(a) of …","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"By letter of 13 June 2013, the then Director of FRA informed the applicant of his decision to terminate his contract.","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"By judgment of 8 October 2015, DD v FRA ( F‑106/13 and F‑25/14 , [the annulment judgment,] EU:F:2015:118 ), the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision to terminate on the grounds that, prior to the adoption of the decision, the Director of FRA had not expressly informed the applicant that, on the basis of various incidents, he was considering terminating his contract and had not invited him to make any observations in that regard.","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"On 29 February 2016, FRA, under a new director, reinstated the applicant in his position, as part of the execution of the [annulment judgment].","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"By email of the same day, the applicant was asked by his head of department to prepare a 15- to 20-page internal brief, by 18 March 2016 at the latest, on human rights standards and the case-law related to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, at international and EU level.","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"By email of 18 March 2016, the applicant sent to his head of department a 31-page document described as a “very first tentative draft of the brief on freedom of religion”, entitled “Internal Brief on possible relevant FRA projects on the freedom of thought, conscience and religion” (“the brief at issue”).","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"At the beginning of April 2016, the brief at issue was stored in FRA’s document management system (“the DMS”), to which all the applicant’s colleagues had access.","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"On 7 April 2016, the applicant’s head of department informed the applicant that he had forwarded the brief at issue to the Director of FRA and invited him to send the link to the document in the DMS to one of his colleagues so that he could read the document and the analysis contained therein.","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"By email of 16 October 2017, the applicant’s head of department asked him to revise the brief at issue and to expand on the analysis devoted to freedom of religion from the European Union’s point of view, in view of possible publication.","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"Furthermore, on 7 November 2017, the applicant lodged an internal appeal against his assessment report for the year 2016 (“the 2016 assessment report”), arguing that the assessment of his effectiveness, capacity and conduct should have been “very good”, instead of “satisfactory”. In that context, wi …","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"On 1 December 2017, the applicant submitted a revised version of the brief at issue.","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"13","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"On 5 December 2017, the Director of FRA rejected the internal appeal against the 2016 assessment report. On that occasion, the Director of FRA stated that he had learned that the brief at issue was, to a very large extent, a direct copy of several sources, including Council of Europe documents, whic …","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"14","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"On 9 February 2018, the Director of FRA consulted [OLAF] about the possible opening of an administrative investigation into the applicant’s conduct.","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"15","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"On 20 March 2018, OLAF decided not to open an investigation due to the fact that there were “not sufficient elements indicating that a potential fraud, corruption or other illegal activities have occurred”.","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"16","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"On 23 March 2018, the Director of FRA opened an administrative investigation into the conduct of the applicant in relation to the brief at issue (“the decision to open the investigation”). The investigating officer [“the investigator”] declared an absence of conflict of interest. The purpose of the …","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"17","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"On 23 and 24 April 2018, the investigator interviewed seven witnesses and the applicant, who provided the investigator with written observations.","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"18","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"On 17 June 2018, the investigator sent the applicant his preliminary findings.","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"19","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"On 2 July 2018, the applicant made observations on the investigator’s preliminary findings.","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"20","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"On 23 July 2018, the investigator submitted his final report (“the inquiry report”), which concluded that the applicant had failed to comply with Articles 11, 12 and 21 of the Staff Regulations and with his duties of loyalty and cooperation. The investigator found, in essence, first, that copying an …","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"21","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"On 15 October 2018, the applicant was heard by the Director of FRA under Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations (“the hearing of 15 October 2018”) and subsequently submitted a written statement, dated the same day.","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"22","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"By a decision of 23 October 2018, the Director of FRA initiated disciplinary proceedings before the Disciplinary Board against the applicant (“the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings”). That decision was notified to the applicant on 7 November 2018.","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"23","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"On 26 February 2019, the Disciplinary Board was constituted by decision of the Director of FRA.","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"24","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"On 27 February 2019, the Director of FRA prepared the report to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Article 12 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations (“the report of the Director of FRA”).","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"25","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"On 21 March 2019, the applicant submitted his statement of defence to the chair of the Disciplinary Board.","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"26","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"On 22 March 2019, the applicant’s hearing before the Disciplinary Board took place.","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"27","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"On 7 May 2019, the Disciplinary Board issued a reasoned opinion (“the Disciplinary Board’s opinion”), in accordance with Article 18 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, finding that the accusations of conduct contrary to the applicant’s obligations under Articles 11, 12 and 21 of the Staff Regulati …","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"28","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"The Disciplinary Board noted, in essence, first, that the applicant had acted not only with the interests of the European Union in mind, but with his own interests in seeking credit for a text of which he was not the author, secondly, that he had not adopted the responsible behaviour expected of an …","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"29","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"Thus, the Disciplinary Board found that the applicant had infringed, first, Article 11 of the Staff Regulations, by deliberately presenting copied work as his own, secondly, Article 12 of the Staff Regulations, in so far as presenting the work of others as his own would have had an adverse effect on …","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"30","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"On 11 July 2019, the applicant was heard by the Director of FRA in accordance with Article 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations (“the hearing of 11 July 2019”) and submitted his written statement.","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"31","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"On 11 October 2019, the applicant received a note from the Director, dated 10 October 2019, expressing his intention to impose the sanction of removal from post and inviting him to submit his observations in that regard in writing within 10 working days.","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"32","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"On 24 October 2019, the applicant sent his observations to the Director of FRA.","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"33","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"On 12 November 2019, the Director of FRA, as the AECC, adopted the decision to remove from post, taking effect on 15 November 2019. In that decision, the Director of FRA endorsed the conclusions of the Disciplinary Board, except for the proposed sanction, as he considered that downgrading did not su …","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"34","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"Furthermore, the Director of FRA considered that the Disciplinary Board had not sufficiently taken into account the seriousness of the infringements of the Staff Regulations with regard to, first, the conduct of the applicant, which the Director of FRA described as an “infringement of the utmost ser …","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"35","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"On 16 December 2019, the applicant lodged a complaint against the decision to remove from post.","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"36","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"On 15 April 2020, the Director of FRA issued the decision rejecting the complaint.’","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"The procedure before the General Court and the judgment under appeal","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 23 July 2020, the appellant brought the action referred to in paragraph 1 above.","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"13","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"By that action, the appellant asked the General Court, first, to annul the decision to remove from post, secondly, if necessary, to annul the decision rejecting the complaint, thirdly, to compensate him for the material and non-material damage he had suffered and, fourthly, to order FRA to pay the costs. In support of his first two heads of claim, the appellant put forward eight principal pleas in law and one plea in law in the alternative:","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"the first, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty, errors of law and a manifest error of assessment, infringement of Paragraph 7(1) of the Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht an Werken der Literatur und der Kunst und über verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz) (Law on copyright in …","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"the second, breach of the duties of diligence and care by the investigator and by the Director of FRA at the time of the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, by the decision to remove from post and by the Disciplinary Board, and also breach of the presumption of innocence and of the requirement of a high standard of proof in administrative investigations and disciplinary proceedings;","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"the third, lack of neutrality, impartiality and objectivity on the part of the Director of FRA as the AECC, breach of the presumption of innocence and abuse of power;","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"the fourth, manifest errors of assessment concerning the appellant’s infringement of Articles 11, 12 and 21 of the Staff Regulations;","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"the fifth, unlawful initiation of the administrative investigation in the absence of any prima facie evidence, and unlawful initiation of the disciplinary proceedings;","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"the sixth, non-compliance with the framework of the investigation by the investigator and infringement of Article 4(2) and Article 7(6) of FRA Management Board Decision 2013/01 of 22 May 2013 on the conduct of administrative investigations and disciplinary proceedings, of Article 4(1)(a) to (d) and …","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"the seventh, the investigator’s lack of impartiality, neutrality and objectivity;","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"the eighth, breach of the rights of the defence, in particular the right to be heard, infringement of Articles 1, 2 and 12 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations; and","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"the ninth, submitted in the alternative, breach of the principle of proportionality by imposing the sanction of removal from post in respect of the facts alleged against the appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"14","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"In the judgment under appeal, the General Court rejected the appellant’s claims for annulment and for damages in their entirety. The General Court also decided that there were no grounds for granting the requests made for measures of organisation of procedure.","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"Forms of order sought by the parties to the appeal","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"15","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"set aside the judgment under appeal;","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"consequently, annul the decision to remove from post and, if appropriate, annul the decision rejecting the complaint;","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"compensate him for the material and non-material damage suffered; and","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"order FRA to pay all the costs.","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"16","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"FRA contends that the Court of Justice should:","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"dismiss the appeal; and","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"order the appellant to pay all the costs.","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"The appeal","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"The first ground of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"17","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"By his first ground of appeal, the appellant alleges, in essence, that the General Court committed, in paragraphs 179 to 193 of the judgment under appeal, a number of errors of law in its assessments concerning the objective impartiality of the investigator and failed to provide a sufficient statement of reasons in that regard. That ground of appeal is divided into two parts.","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"18","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"By the first part of his first ground of appeal, the appellant claims, first, that the General Court, in finding, in paragraphs 179 to 185 of the judgment under appeal, that the evidence he adduced was not sufficient to establish that the investigator lacked subjective impartiality, failed to examin …","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"19","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"Secondly, contrary to what the General Court held in paragraphs 186 to 192 of the judgment under appeal, in order to find a lack of objective impartiality, it is sufficient that a legitimate doubt in that regard exists and cannot be dispelled. The applicant also submits that, in the present case, th …","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"20","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"The appellant submits, thirdly, that the General Court’s conclusion, in paragraph 191 of the judgment under appeal, that the amounts paid to the investigator were justified by the amount of work entrusted to him is irrelevant in the present case, since it does not dispel the legitimate doubt that th …","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"21","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"Fourthly and lastly, the appellant claims that the General Court distorted the evidence and made a manifest error of assessment in paragraph 189 of the judgment under appeal. He claims in that regard that it was apparent from the evidence submitted for the General Court’s assessment that the service provided by the investigator, for which he was paid, actually consisted of legal advice.","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"22","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"By the second part of his first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court did not examine to the requisite legal standard the evidence and facts submitted for its assessment and that it erred in law in paragraphs 187 to 193 of the judgment under appeal by rejecting, in paragraphs 292 to 296 of that judgment, the appellant’s first and second requests for a measure of organisation of procedure.","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"23","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"FRA contends, as a preliminary point, that the appeal is, to a large extent, a repetition of the views and arguments put forward by the appellant in the application and in the reply at first instance. Consequently, in its view, a number of the allegedly legal arguments put forward in the appeal are in reality attempts to challenge facts.","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"24","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"FRA contends that the first ground of appeal is in part inadmissible and, in any event, manifestly unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"Assessment of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"25","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"By the second part of the first ground of appeal, which it is appropriate to examine at the outset, the appellant criticises paragraphs 292 to 296 of the judgment under appeal in so far as, in those paragraphs, the General Court wrongly refused to grant the measures of organisation of procedure whic …","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"26","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, according to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the General Court is the sole judge of whether the information available to it concerning the cases before it needs to be supplemented (judgment of 4 March 2021, Liaño Reig v SRB, C‑947/19 P , EU:C:2021:172 , paragraph  98 and the case-law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"27","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"Accordingly, the appellant cannot reasonably challenge, at the stage of the present appeal, the General Court’s decision not to adopt the measures of organisation of procedure which he had suggested should be adopted in his written pleadings at first instance.","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"28","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"As regards the first part of the first ground of appeal, alleging, in essence, that the General Court erred in law by ruling out the existence of any legitimate doubt as to the objective impartiality of the investigator, it must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the institutions, bodi …","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"29","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"In that regard, the Court of Justice has made clear that the need for impartiality, required of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union in carrying out their missions, is intended to guarantee equality of treatment, which is at the heart of the European Union. That requi …","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"30","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"That requirement of impartiality has a subjective component, by virtue of which no member of the institution concerned may show bias or personal prejudice, and an objective component. In accordance with the latter component, on which the appellant relies, each institution, body, office or agency of …","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"31","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"More particularly, in order to show that the organisation of an administrative procedure does not ensure sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt as to possible bias, it is not necessary to prove lack of impartiality. It is sufficient for a legitimate doubt in that regard to arise which cannot be dispelled (judgment of 11 January 2024, Hamers v Cedefop, C‑111/22 P , EU:C:2024:5 , paragraph  47 and the case-law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"32","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"It follows that persons whose affairs are handled by an EU institution, body, office or agency cannot be required to provide, in support of their arguments that the requirement of objective impartiality was not complied with during an administrative procedure, proof of specific indications of bias. …","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"33","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"Having recalled that case-law, in essence, in paragraph 186 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held, in paragraph 187 of that judgment, that the appellant had not established that the relationship between FRA and the investigator could give rise to a legitimate doubt as to the objective …","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"34","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"It should be pointed out that, in accordance with the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, it follows from the second subparagraph of Article 256(1) TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union that the General Court has exclusive juris …","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"35","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"There is such distortion where, without recourse to new evidence, the assessment of the existing evidence is clearly incorrect or clearly contrary to its wording. However, such distortion must be clear from the documents on the Court’s file, without there being any need to carry out a new assessment …","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"36","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"It follows that the first plea in law must be rejected as inadmissible, in so far as, by his arguments, the appellant claims that the evidence adduced before the General Court was, to the extent that it discloses the role of legal adviser to FRA played by the investigator and the high amount of remu …","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"37","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"Furthermore, in so far as, by the first ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the General Court erred in law in paragraph 191 of the judgment under appeal by not finding that the mere existence of a financial relationship between the investigator and FRA was sufficient, irrespective of the …","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"38","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"Lastly, in so far as the appellant criticises the General Court for having held, in paragraph 192 of the judgment under appeal, that the present case is not similar to the one that gave rise to the judgment of 18 September 2012, Allgeier v FRA ( F‑58/10 , EU:F:2012:130 ), his argument must be reject …","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"39","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"It follows that the first ground of appeal must be rejected.","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"The second ground of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"40","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"By his second ground of appeal, the appellant complains, in essence, that, in paragraphs 67 to 98 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court committed a number of errors of law, distorted the evidence and committed manifest errors of assessment in its examination of the conduct alleged against the appellant by FRA, that is to say, that he engaged in ‘plagiarism’ in order to draft the brief at issue and failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons in that regard.","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"41","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"First, he criticises, in essence, the interpretation of the concept of ‘plagiarism’ adopted by the General Court in paragraphs 58 to 61, 70, 72, 79 and 81 of the judgment under appeal. On the one hand, the General Court proposed a definition devoid of legal relevance of a term which does not fall wi …","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"42","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"On the other, the General Court wrongly referred, in paragraph 60 of the judgment under appeal, to the Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar in Pelham and Others ( C‑476/17 , EU:C:2018:1002 ), concerning the interpretation of the scope of the so-called quotation exception in Directive 2001/29/EC of th …","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"43","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"Secondly, the appellant submits that the General Court appears, wrongly, to reject the applicability of Article 11 of the Charter. Referring to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the applicant submits that freedom of expression applies to the reception and communication of all information and ideas, regardless of its content.","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"44","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"The appellant claims, in that regard, that the General Court erred in law, in paragraph 57 of the judgment under appeal, by referring to the wording of the Disciplinary Board’s advisory opinion, whereas only that of the Appointing Authority’s decision is relevant for assessing the legality of that d …","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"45","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"Nor did the General Court take into consideration the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 25 November 1999, Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom (CE:ECHR:1999:1125JUD002559494), as regards the interpretation of the requirement, laid down in Article 52(1) of the Charter, that any li …","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"46","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"According to the applicant, when he drafted and shared the brief at issue, he was covered by freedom of expression and information guaranteed by Article 11 of the Charter. It follows from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights that a dismissal on disciplinary grounds may breach such a fr …","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"47","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"Thirdly, as regards the absence of a valid legal limitation, throughout the judgment under appeal, and more specifically in paragraphs 67 to 69 and 95 to 98 thereof, the General Court misinterpreted Articles 11, 12 and 21 of the Staff Regulations. The appellant submits, in that regard, that the Gene …","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"48","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"Fourthly, the General Court erred in law, distorted the evidence and provided insufficient reasoning in paragraphs 72 and 218 of the judgment under appeal. In that regard, the appellant submits that it is true that FRA has internal rules on publishing and producing research results. However, those r …","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"49","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"FRA contends, in essence, that the arguments raised by the applicant in the context of the second plea are inadmissible and, in any event, it considers them to be manifestly unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"Assessment of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"50","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"In the first place, as regards the appellant’s arguments relating to the General Court’s interpretation of the concept of ‘plagiarism’, referring, in essence, to the considerations set out in paragraphs 58 to 61, 70, 72, 79 and 81 of the judgment under appeal, it should be noted that such an argument cannot succeed.","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"51","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"It is true, as the applicant rightly submits, that the concept of ‘plagiarism’ is not a concept of EU law and questions relating to copyright, in principle, fall within the scope of the law of the Member States.","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"52","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"However, in the present case, as is apparent in particular from paragraphs 55 and 56 of the judgment under appeal, which have not been challenged by the appellant in the present appeal, the General Court considered that, in order to respond to the first part of the first plea in the action at first …","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"53","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"The same is true of the appellant’s criticism of paragraph 57 of the judgment under appeal, since the General Court merely stated in that paragraph that there was a difference in the wording, on the one hand, of the decision to remove from post, in which FRA had found that the appellant had committe …","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"54","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"Furthermore, the General Court rightly held, in paragraph 80 of the judgment under appeal, that, where an official does not comply with the obligations arising from the Staff Regulations, the fact of acting in accordance with national law does not confer on the person concerned immunity from the app …","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"55","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"In the second place, the complaint alleging that the General Court wrongly rejected, in paragraphs 90 and 91 of the judgment under appeal, the appellant’s argument that FRA prevented him from exercising, absolutely, his right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 11 of the Charter and faile …","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"56","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"Contrary to what the appellant claims, the General Court did not, in any paragraph of the judgment under appeal, find that the content of the brief at issue was not covered by freedom of expression, with the result that it would have been necessary to disapply Article 11 of the Charter, nor, a forti …","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"57","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"On the contrary, as is apparent, in particular, from paragraphs 86 to 94 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that, according to Article 11(1) of the Charter, the right to freedom of expression includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without …","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"58","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"Moreover, in so far as the appellant claims that the General Court failed to examine the consequences of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 25 November 1999, Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom (CE:ECHR:1999:1125JUD002559494), it must be recalled that a plea alleging that the …","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"59","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"The obligation to state reasons does not require the General Court to provide an account which follows exhaustively and one by one all the arguments put forward by the parties to the case, since the General Court’s reasoning may be implicit on condition that it enables the persons concerned to know …","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"60","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"In the present case, in his application at first instance, the appellant argued that a restriction of the fundamental right of freedom of expression ‘provided for by law’, within the meaning of Article 52(1) of the Charter, requires a certain degree of clarity and foreseeability of the law in questi …","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"61","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"After recalling the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights according to which a rule cannot validly impose restrictions on freedom of expression if it is not set out with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his or her conduct, which, moreover, is also required by the princ …","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"62","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"Thus, in so far as the appellant complains that the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons, the arguments which it puts forward in that respect must be held to be unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"63","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"In the third place, as regards the line of argument that the General Court misinterpreted, in paragraphs 67 to 69 and 95 to 98 of the judgment under appeal, Articles 11, 12 and 21 of the Staff Regulations as provisions imposing a limitation on the right to freedom of expression, it should be recalle …","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"64","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"In that regard, it follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice that it must be borne in mind that, whenever officials’ right to freedom of expression is in issue, their duties and responsibilities assume a special significance which justifies leaving the EU institution or body concerned a cert …","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"65","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"More particularly, the duty of loyalty, laid down in Article 12 of the Staff Regulations, means not only that the officials concerned must refrain from conduct which might reflect adversely upon their position and is detrimental to the respect due to the institution and its authorities, but also tha …","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"66","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"In the present case, the General Court found, in paragraphs 27, 33 and 60 to 62 of the judgment under appeal, relying on the grounds of the decision to remove from post and the Disciplinary Board’s opinion, that the conduct of which the appellant was accused consisted of a deliberate presentation of …","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"67","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"Those findings of the General Court clearly show that the appellant was not penalised because he had expressed a personal or dissenting opinion in the brief at issue, but because he had presented the writings of others as being the result of his own work, without mentioning his sources. On the basis …","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"68","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"Accordingly, the General Court was fully entitled to hold, in paragraph 96 of the judgment under appeal, that that limitation on the right to freedom of expression cannot be regarded as excessive in the present case, since the appellant remained in a position to express his views freely in the brief at issue, without, however, having the right to present the work of others as being the result of his own work by not mentioning his sources.","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"69","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"In so ruling, contrary to what the appellant claims, the General Court did not err in law.","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"70","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"In the light of the foregoing, the second ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"Third ground of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"71","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"By his third ground of appeal, the appellant alleges, in essence, that, in its description of the dispute in paragraph 9 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court distorted the facts and evidence which he had submitted to it, in particular a message sent to the appellant by the head of the dep …","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"72","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"FRA contends that the third ground of appeal is inadmissible, arguing that the appellant merely challenges the findings of fact made by the General Court.","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"Assessment of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"73","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"It must be held that, by his third ground of appeal, the appellant merely challenges the description of the facts, as set out by the General Court in paragraph 9 of the judgment under appeal, in the part of that judgment which sets out the background to the dispute, without indicating how the allege …","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"74","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"Consequently, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraphs 31 and 32 above, the third ground of appeal is inadmissible.","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"Fourth ground of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"75","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"In his fourth ground of appeal, the appellant claims in essence that, in paragraphs 101, 106, 107, 111 to 113 and 122 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court committed a number of errors of law, distorted the evidence and committed manifest errors of assessment in its examination of the lawfulness of the initiation of the administrative investigation, and that it failed to provide sufficient reasoning in that connection.","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"76","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"The appellant contends, first, that the General Court distorted the evidence and committed a manifest error of assessment in paragraph 107 of the judgment under appeal, in so far as the OLAF consultation was only attached to the report of the Director of FRA and that the appellant did not receive it …","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"77","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"The appellant argues, secondly, that the General Court failed to assess the legal context in which the initiation of an administrative investigation takes place. In his view, in order to ensure that the ‘prima facie evidence’ criterion, referred to in Article 86(1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations, …","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"78","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"Moreover, the appellant considers that an administrative investigation is in itself, by definition, a data processing operation which, according to Article 4 of Regulation No 45/2001, requires a ‘specified, explicit and legitimate purpose’. The appellant adds that the General Court erred in law in s …","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"79","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"The appellant contends, thirdly, that the General Court erred in law, in paragraph 111 of the judgment under appeal, by not applying the case-law established in the judgment of 8 July 2008, Franchet and Byk v Commission ( T‑48/05 , EU:T:2008:257 ), confirmed by the judgment of 12 July 2012, Commission v Nanopoulos ( T‑308/10 P , EU:T:2012:370 ), which requires there to be sufficiently precise and relevant evidence available before disciplinary proceedings are initiated.","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"80","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"FRA contends that the fourth ground of appeal is inadmissible and adds that it is, in any event, manifestly unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"Assessment of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"81","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"At the outset, it must be observed that, under Article 86(2) of the Staff Regulations, where the Appointing Authority becomes aware of evidence of failure within the meaning of paragraph 1 of that article, it may launch administrative investigations to verify whether such failure has occurred. It is …","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"82","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"Although, as the General Court pointed out in paragraph 103 of the judgment under appeal, the administration has a wide discretion as regards the initiation of an administrative investigation, it must nevertheless be in a position, as the General Court held in essence in paragraph 104 of that judgme …","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"83","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"Having correctly set out those principles, the General Court rejected, in paragraph 106 of the judgment under appeal, the appellant’s argument that the decision to initiate the administrative investigation did not mention Article 21 of the Staff Regulations and the AECC had not known, at the time of initiating that investigation, exactly which provisions of the Staff Regulations the appellant might have infringed.","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"84","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"In that regard, the General Court rightly held, also in paragraph 106, that Article 1 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, to which Article 2 refers as regards administrative investigations carried out by the Appointing Authority, does not require that authority, or where appropriate the AECC, to s …","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"85","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"In those circumstances, the General Court was entitled, without committing any error of law or distortion and on the basis of an adequate statement of reasons, to find, in paragraphs 108 and 111 of the judgment under appeal, that the procedure concerning the appellant had been properly initiated, gi …","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"86","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"It follows that the fourth ground of appeal must be rejected as, in part, inadmissible and, in part, unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"The fifth ground of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"87","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"By his fifth ground of appeal, the appellant submits, in essence, that the General Court, in paragraphs 16, 114, 119 to 131, 135 and 136 of the judgment under appeal, made a number of errors of law, distorted the evidence, provided an inadequate statement of reasons and carried out an incomplete examination of his action at first instance, in the context of its assessment of the ‘legal significance’ of the decision to initiate the investigation.","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"88","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"According to the appellant, FRA did not transfer its disciplinary powers to the investigator, contrary to the General Court’s assertions, but entrusted that investigator with a specific investigation with a specific purpose and scope. The General Court also failed to assess correctly the legal conte …","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"89","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"FRA contends that the fifth ground of appeal is unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"Assessment of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"90","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"By his fifth ground of appeal, the appellant complains, in essence, that the General Court incorrectly classified the ‘legal significance’ of the decision to initiate the investigation. However, under the guise of a plea alleging errors of law, in particular an alleged infringement of the rules gove …","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"91","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"In addition, in so far as the appellant claims that the General Court distorted the wording of the decision to initiate the administrative investigation, he merely repeats the arguments already submitted to the General Court, as is apparent from paragraphs 122 to 135 of the judgment under appeal, without explaining how those arguments are vitiated by an error of law.","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"92","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"It follows that the fifth ground of appeal must be rejected as inadmissible.","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"The sixth, seventh and eighth grounds of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"93","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"By his sixth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court carried out an incomplete examination of his action at first instance, in so far as it did not respond to the appellant’s argument that the Disciplinary Board had not confined itself to the facts mentioned in the report of the Director of FRA and that it had therefore infringed the Staff Regulations.","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"94","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"By his seventh ground of appeal, the appellant submits that, in paragraphs 194 and 200 to 205 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court did not have regard to the fact that he had adduced evidence capable of establishing that the Appointing Authority had already decided to impose the sanction …","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"95","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"By his eighth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that it is apparent from the appeal as a whole that the General Court infringed Article 47 of the Charter by failing to grant him an effective judicial remedy.","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"96","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"FRA contends that the appellant’s position on the sixth ground of appeal remains vague and does not identify the paragraphs of the judgment under appeal to which it relates.","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"97","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"As regards the seventh ground of appeal, FRA maintains that, contrary to what the appellant claims, the General Court referred to his line of argument at the end of paragraph 202 of the judgment under appeal and responded to it in paragraphs 203 and 204 thereof.","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"98","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"Lastly, according to FRA, the eighth ground of appeal is manifestly inadmissible.","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"Assessment of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"99","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"It follows from the second subparagraph of Article 256(1) TFEU, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Article 168(1)(d) and Article 169(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested …","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"100","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"In particular, a ground of appeal supported by an argument that is not sufficiently clear and precise to enable the Court to exercise its powers of judicial review, in particular because essential elements on which the ground of appeal relies are not indicated sufficiently coherently and intelligibl …","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"101","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"In the present case, as regards the sixth and eighth grounds of appeal, it is sufficient to note that they do not identify precisely the paragraphs in the grounds of the judgment under appeal against which they are directed or the errors of law by which they are allegedly vitiated. Moreover, those grounds of appeal are formulated in very general terms, without providing sufficient arguments to enable the Court to assess their merits.","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"102","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"Similarly, as regards the seventh ground of appeal, although the appellant states that that ground of appeal relates to paragraphs 194 and 200 to 205 of the judgment under appeal, alleging that the General Court failed to mention and examine the evidence that the Appointing Authority had already dec …","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"103","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"Consequently, the sixth, seventh and eighth grounds of appeal must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible.","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"104","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"Since none of the grounds of appeal has been upheld, the action must be dismissed in its entirety.","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"105","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"Under Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where the appeal is unfounded, the Court is to make a decision as to the costs. Under Article 138(1) of those rules, which apply to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"106","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"Since the appellant has been unsuccessful, he must, in accordance with the form of order sought by FRA, be ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by FRA.","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby:","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"1.","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"Dismisses the appeal;","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"2.","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"Orders DD to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"Jarukaitis","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"Regan","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"Csehi","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 12 December 2024.","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"A. Calot Escobar","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"Registrar","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"K. Lenaerts","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"President","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"(\n *1\n ) Language of the case: English.","paragraph_id":"para_396"}],"word_count":12836,"cites":["C-680/22","T-470/20","F-106/13","F-25/14","F-58/10","C-947/19","C-111/22","C-291/22","C-218/23","C-549/21","C-524/22","C-476/17","C-527/21","C-274/99","C-446/19","T-203/03","T-48/05","T-308/10","C-46/22","C-366/21"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"0590e4f8f1d2220e205464c6fc5f2eaa6a15a57d0f451294f26822e4efb03e64","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62022CJ0680.ENG.xhtml.ECR_62022CJ0680_EN_01.html","fetched_at":"2026-09-30T00:04:53.8+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-680-22-p-62022cj0680","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-680-22-p-62022cj0680","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-680-22-p-62022cj0680","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-680-22-p-62022cj0680","verification_scope":{"stored_hash_is_source_verification":false,"official_source_comparison":"not_performed","legal_review":"not_assessed"},"decision_object":{"schema_version":"1","object_id":"decision:eu:c-680-22-p-62022cj0680","judgment_class":"C","operative_part":"not_in_register","cites_count":20,"word_count":12836,"decision_url":null},"agent_links":{"agent_root":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent.json","agent_overview":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/rapid/agent/overview"}},"hash":"sha256:64cca16b5a2540c2b9550955b8ca85da8dba15e6eed915a1df8bb79eed7bd4bd","version":"legal-2026-11-03","expires":"2026-11-04T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-11-03+legal-2026-11-03+2026-11-03T18:20:21","content_hash":"sha256:64cca16b5a2540c2b9550955b8ca85da8dba15e6eed915a1df8bb79eed7bd4bd","revalidate_after":"2026-11-03T21:52:26.570Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-680-22-p-62022cj0680","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-680-22-p-62022cj0680"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-680-22-p-62022cj0680"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-680-22-p-62022cj0680"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-680-22-p-62022cj0680","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-70993a152544de76209ff7c20775b272","response_hash":"sha256:64cca16b5a2540c2b9550955b8ca85da8dba15e6eed915a1df8bb79eed7bd4bd"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"stable","as_of":"2026-11-04T03:00:52.084Z","valid_for":604800,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-680-22-p-62022cj0680","note":"Oföränderligt objekt med hash. Får cachas länge.","tokens":24540}}