Report highlights erratic staff disciplinary policy

Date: 21/03/1996

By Rory Watson

INCONSISTENCIES in the way the European Commission punishes staff found guilty of misconduct after internal disciplinary proceedings have been revealed in a confidential report.

The inventory compiled by the Commission shows that three officials have been dismissed and a further nine disciplined over the past two years for offences ranging from spying to cheating in competitions.

The dozen punishments meted out followed the completion of 37 internal disciplinary procedures during 1994 and 1995 into allegations of improper conduct among the 16,000 staff.

But the report has compounded the problems facing Personnel Commissioner Erkki Liikanen in his attempts to tighten up internal disciplinary procedures as part of a wide-ranging review of staffing policy.

The move has already run into hostility, with even supporters of the initiative admitting that “enthusiasm is not very strong” for any changes in the rigidly hierarchical institution.

Critics complain of inconsistency in the way the Commission's disciplinary policy is applied and argue that some of the punishments hardly appear to fit the crime.

They point to one official whose penalty for spying for a foreign country - believed to be the former East Germany - was demotion by one grade. The same sanction was applied to a member of staff investigated for unauthorised absences from work.

One of the three cases of staff dismissals recorded in the inventory is thought to have involved a 'C' grade secretary sacked for cheating in an internal competition. Yet another staff member investigated for a similar offence received only a reprimand.

It is these inconsistencies which some senior officials believe should now be addressed.

“Opponents argue that the personnel directorate-general should get its act together and apply existing rules consistently before trying to change things elsewhere in the Commission,” said one senior official.

“I feel there is some unevenness in the outcome of internal inquiries and the administration must be made more transparent. It is also important that information be available on the punishment recommended by the disciplinary board and the sanction finally applied. Sometimes these are more lenient, sometimes more severe, and the Commission ought to change its policy and release these details,” said another source.

The inventory compiled by the Commission does not tell the full story, as the figures do not take account of two of the most high-profile disciplinary investigations ever carried out by the institution.

The first led to the dismissal earlier this year of senior British official Bernard Connolly after the unauthorised publication of his book The Rotten Heart of Europe, with its condemnation of a single currency.

Connolly is fighting the decision in the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg. This month, his lawyers tabled a legal challenge to the opinion delivered by the Commission's disciplinary board to add to the earlier case they filed claiming the internal inquiry itself was illegal.

The second involves the former Commission ambassador to Moscow, Michael Emerson, who took early retirement last month after an internal inquiry was launched when attention focused on his professional relationship with Russian businessman Ilya Baskin.

Of the three dismissals included in the inventory, two involve George Tzoanos and Pascal Chatillon, who lost their jobs after an investigation into the use of EU funds to promote tourism. The inquiry attacked a lack of financial management and criticised the way contracts had been awarded.

Tzoanos, his wife and Chatillon have also been investigated by the Belgian authorities and face the prospect of trial in Belgium.

Other punishments imposed by the Commission included moving one official to a new post and six reprimands for misbehaviour involving cheating in competitions, theft and attempted fraud, exploiting privileged commercial links and irregular absences.

In 25 cases, the Commission decided that no further action was necessary, apart perhaps from a written warning to the official concerned. The investigations involved allegations of using Commission headed notepaper for private use, attempted fiddling of travel expenses, the unauthorised acceptance of gifts, slanderous comments about colleagues, the disclosure of confidential documents, sexual harassment, anonymous telephone calls and insubordination.

The 12 punishments were applied to five 'A' grade officials, one 'B' grade, five 'C' grades and one 'D' grade.