# C_2020201EN.01005201.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/52

---

Action brought on 21 April 2020 — CH and CN v Parliament

(Case T-222/20)

(2020/C 201/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Parliament

Forms of order sought

The applicants claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare their application admissible;

| — | annul the contested decisions in so far as they do not adopt any final decision on the veracity of the incidents of alleged psychological harassment; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions in so far as they do not adopt any final decision on the veracity of the incidents of alleged psychological harassment;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicants EUR 5 000 each ex aequo et bono in damages for the harm and suffering caused by undue delay, to be increased by late payment interest until paid in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicants EUR 5 000 each ex aequo et bono in damages for the harm and suffering caused by undue delay, to be increased by late payment interest until paid in full;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicants EUR 100 000 each ex aequo et bono in damages for the harm and suffering caused by the failure to adopt a final decision on the veracity of incidents of alleged psychological harassment, to be increased by late payment interest until paid in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicants EUR 100 000 each ex aequo et bono in damages for the harm and suffering caused by the failure to adopt a final decision on the veracity of incidents of alleged 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 incidents of alleged psychological harassment.

| 1. | The first plea in law alleges breach of the duty of assistance and of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (the Staff Regulations), on the ground that, by not adopting a final decision on whether the incidents of alleged psychological harassment were true, the Parliament’s authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment failed in its duty of assistance. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea in law alleges breach of the duty of assistance and of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (the Staff Regulations), on the ground that, by not adopting a final decision on whether the incidents of alleged psychological harassment were true, the Parliament’s authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment failed in its duty of assistance.

| 2. | The second plea in law alleges breach of duty of care and the principle of sound administration, on the one hand, and of breach of the right to human dignity and Articles 1 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the other, on the ground that by not adopting a final decision on whether the incidents of alleged psychological harassment were true, the Parliament’s authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment breached the principle of sound administration and its duty of care, thereby breaching the applicants’ right to human dignity. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea in law alleges breach of duty of care and the principle of sound administration, on the one hand, and of breach of the right to human dignity and Articles 1 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the other, on the ground that by not adopting a final decision on whether the incidents of alleged psychological harassment were true, the Parliament’s authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment breached the principle of sound administration and its duty of care, thereby breaching the applicants’ right to human dignity.

---