# C_2022073EN.01006701.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/67

---

Action brought on 29 December 2021 — QI v Commission

(Case T-807/21)

(2022/C 73/84)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: QI (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 26 February 2021 of the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security to reject the applicant’s complaint of 25 October 2020 made under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 26 February 2021 of the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security to reject the applicant’s complaint of 25 October 2020 made under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;

| — | annul, in so far as necessary, the Commission’s decision of 27 September 2021 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 26 May 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as necessary, the Commission’s decision of 27 September 2021 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 26 May 2021;

| — | order the Commission to pay damages to the applicant in respect of the material and non-material harm she has suffered, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 100 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay damages to the applicant in respect of the material and non-material harm she has suffered, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 100 000;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the rejection of the request for assistance was premature since it was made without opening an investigation and without waiting for the result of her request for access to her medical file, and was thus in breach of the right to be heard in an effective manner before the adoption of the decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the rejection of the request for assistance was premature since it was made without opening an investigation and without waiting for the result of her request for access to her medical file, and was thus in breach of the right to be heard in an effective manner before the adoption of the decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in relation to there being a lack of evidence of behaviour contrary to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’). The applicant argues that the harassment suffered actually occurred, that the procedural time limits were too short and raises a breach of Article 59 of the Staff regulations as not authorising the examinations which were carried out by the medical service in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in relation to there being a lack of evidence of behaviour contrary to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’). The applicant argues that the harassment suffered actually occurred, that the procedural time limits were too short and raises a breach of Article 59 of the Staff regulations as not authorising the examinations which were carried out by the medical service in the present case.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of the duty to provide assistance and have regard for the welfare of staff, of the applicant’s right to good administration, and also of the right to be treated fairly. The applicant also raises a breach of her legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of the duty to provide assistance and have regard for the welfare of staff, of the applicant’s right to good administration, and also of the right to be treated fairly. The applicant also raises a breach of her legitimate expectations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard in an effective manner owing to the lack of adversarial proceedings in relation to the information examined by the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) before closing the file. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard in an effective manner owing to the lack of adversarial proceedings in relation to the information examined by the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) before closing the file.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, requesting compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, requesting compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered.

---