# C_2020329EN.01001801.xml

| 5.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/18

---

Action brought on 2 August 2020 — CH and CN v Parliament

(Case T-490/20)

(2020/C 329/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: CH and CN (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare their application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare their application admissible;

| — | annul the contested decisions, in that they do not adopt a final decision on the veracity of the alleged occurrences of psychological harassment; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions, in that they do not adopt a final decision on the veracity of the alleged occurrences of psychological harassment;

| — | order the defendant to pay each applicant EUR 5 000ex aequo et bono by way of compensation for the non-material damage caused by undue delay, to be increased by late payment interest until paid in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay each applicant EUR 5 000ex aequo et bono by way of compensation for the non-material damage caused by undue delay, to be increased by late payment interest until paid in full;

| — | order the defendant to pay each applicant EUR 100 000ex aequo et bono by way of compensation for the non-material damage caused by the failure to adopt a final decision on the veracity of alleged occurrences of psychological harassment, to be increased by late payment interest until paid in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay each applicant EUR 100 000ex aequo et bono by way of compensation for the non-material damage caused by the failure to adopt a final decision on the veracity of alleged occurrences of psychological harassment, to be increased by late payment interest until paid in full;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants rely on two pleas in law in support of the action against the decisions of the Parliament of 13 September 2019 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution, in response to their requests for assistance, did not adopt a final decision on the veracity of the alleged occurrences of psychological harassment.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of assistance and infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), on the ground that by failing to adopt a final decision on the existence of the alleged occurrences of psychological harassment, the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of the Parliament breached the duty of assistance which it must observe. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of assistance and infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), on the ground that by failing to adopt a final decision on the existence of the alleged occurrences of psychological harassment, the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of the Parliament breached the duty of assistance which it must observe.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care and the principle of sound administration, and violation of the right to dignity and infringement of Articles 1 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the ground that by failing to adopt a final decision on the existence of the alleged occurrences of psychological harassment, the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of the Parliament breached the principle of sound administration and its duty of care, thereby violating the human dignity of the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care and the principle of sound administration, and violation of the right to dignity and infringement of Articles 1 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the ground that by failing to adopt a final decision on the existence of the alleged occurrences of psychological harassment, the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of the Parliament breached the principle of sound administration and its duty of care, thereby violating the human dignity of the applicants.

---