# C_2017357EN.01001302.xml

| 23.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/13

---

Action brought on 18 August 2017 — PC v EASO

(Case T-181/17)

(2017/C 357/18)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: PC (represented by: L. Railas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (EASO)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | order EASO to cancel and destroy the anonymous document degrading to human dignity from the reasoned decision of 15 June 2016 and to take a new decision relating to the backdated decision EASO/ED/2015/358 and the dismissal decision EASO/HR/2015/607 made on its basis, which are sought to be annulled in the applicant’s action T-610/16; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to cancel and destroy the anonymous document degrading to human dignity from the reasoned decision of 15 June 2016 and to take a new decision relating to the backdated decision EASO/ED/2015/358 and the dismissal decision EASO/HR/2015/607 made on its basis, which are sought to be annulled in the applicant’s action T-610/16;

| — | order EASO to remove the separate personal files and to maintain, as regards the applicant, only a single personal file in accordance with Article 26 of the EU Staff Regulations, the documents in which are in accordance with the Staff Regulations; order EASO to remove from the applicant’s personal file the handwritten documents which cannot be identified with complete certainty and do not belong there; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to remove the separate personal files and to maintain, as regards the applicant, only a single personal file in accordance with Article 26 of the EU Staff Regulations, the documents in which are in accordance with the Staff Regulations; order EASO to remove from the applicant’s personal file the handwritten documents which cannot be identified with complete certainty and do not belong there;

| — | order EASO to investigate the process by which document EASO/ED/2015/358 came into being, and order EASO and the EASO management board to take measures with respect to the poor administration of the office in accordance with Articles 29(b) and 31(6) of Regulation No 439/2010 establishing EASO, and to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 30 000 for the breach of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union when EASO adopted an individual measure which adversely affected her; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to investigate the process by which document EASO/ED/2015/358 came into being, and order EASO and the EASO management board to take measures with respect to the poor administration of the office in accordance with Articles 29(b) and 31(6) of Regulation No 439/2010 establishing EASO, and to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 30 000 for the breach of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union when EASO adopted an individual measure which adversely affected her;

| — | order EASO to investigate the workplace harassment directed to the applicant, and order EASO and the EASO management board to take measures against those who were responsible for the harassment, and to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 30 000 for that long-term workplace harassment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to investigate the workplace harassment directed to the applicant, and order EASO and the EASO management board to take measures against those who were responsible for the harassment, and to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 30 000 for that long-term workplace harassment;

| — | order EASO to investigate the leaking to unauthorised third parties of confidential documents concerning the applicant, and order EASO and the EASO management board to take measures against those responsible for leaking the document, and to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 20 000 on account of the administrative infringement; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to investigate the leaking to unauthorised third parties of confidential documents concerning the applicant, and order EASO and the EASO management board to take measures against those responsible for leaking the document, and to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 20 000 on account of the administrative infringement;

| — | order EASO to investigate the breach of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and order EASO and the EASO management board to take measures against those responsible for the breaches of the Protocol, and to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 20 000 on account of the administrative infringement; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to investigate the breach of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and order EASO and the EASO management board to take measures against those responsible for the breaches of the Protocol, and to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 20 000 on account of the administrative infringement;

| — | order EASO to restore the applicant’s five-year employment relationship, so that it continues without interruption and for remuneration, and require EASO to pay the applicant as compensation the salary for the post, allowances and employer’s pension contributions for the period of time in which she was absent from her work until it is restored; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to restore the applicant’s five-year employment relationship, so that it continues without interruption and for remuneration, and require EASO to pay the applicant as compensation the salary for the post, allowances and employer’s pension contributions for the period of time in which she was absent from her work until it is restored;

| — | in the alternative, if EASO cannot restore the applicant’s employment relationship, order EASO to pay the applicant as compensation the salary for the post, allowances and employer’s pension contributions for a period of five years without interruption; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, if EASO cannot restore the applicant’s employment relationship, order EASO to pay the applicant as compensation the salary for the post, allowances and employer’s pension contributions for a period of five years without interruption;

| — | order EASO to pay the applicant damages of EUR 30 000 as compensation for the mental suffering experienced by her, that is, the feeling of psychological damage which the applicant experienced because of EASO’s manner of proceeding in which the right to be heard was handled contrary to the spirit of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to pay the applicant damages of EUR 30 000 as compensation for the mental suffering experienced by her, that is, the feeling of psychological damage which the applicant experienced because of EASO’s manner of proceeding in which the right to be heard was handled contrary to the spirit of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| — | order EASO to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that workplace harassment done and directed by her superior was systematically and repeatedly applied to the applicant. That caused, for example, abnormal working conditions for the probationary period, which thus lacked integrity and objectivity and was characterised by authoritarian measures, manipulation and groundless public criticism of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that workplace harassment done and directed by her superior was systematically and repeatedly applied to the applicant. That caused, for example, abnormal working conditions for the probationary period, which thus lacked integrity and objectivity and was characterised by authoritarian measures, manipulation and groundless public criticism of the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that in EASO’s reasoned decision EASO/HR/2016/525 there is a document, based on anonymous complaints, which was not connected with the applicant’s dismissal and does not form part of the applicant’s personal file. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that in EASO’s reasoned decision EASO/HR/2016/525 there is a document, based on anonymous complaints, which was not connected with the applicant’s dismissal and does not form part of the applicant’s personal file.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that EASO deprived the applicant of possibilities of defence both by drawing up document EASP/ED/2015/358 retrospectively and by infringing Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that EASO deprived the applicant of possibilities of defence both by drawing up document EASP/ED/2015/358 retrospectively and by infringing Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that EASO is also blackening the applicant’s character outside EASO, for example by sending the European Ombudsman reasoned decision EASO/HR/2016/525, which contains an unfounded, irrelevant and unconfirmed document about the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that EASO is also blackening the applicant’s character outside EASO, for example by sending the European Ombudsman reasoned decision EASO/HR/2016/525, which contains an unfounded, irrelevant and unconfirmed document about the applicant.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that EASO transmits and leaks confidential documents concerning the applicant to third parties who are not entitled to have access to them, contrary to Articles 17 and 19 of the EU Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that EASO transmits and leaks confidential documents concerning the applicant to third parties who are not entitled to have access to them, contrary to Articles 17 and 19 of the EU Staff Regulations.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that EASO has infringed the rules concerning the consistency of documents, in that EASO keeps two different personal files on the applicant and refuses to regard as relevant even the data in the public personal file, contrary to Article 26 of the EU Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that EASO has infringed the rules concerning the consistency of documents, in that EASO keeps two different personal files on the applicant and refuses to regard as relevant even the data in the public personal file, contrary to Article 26 of the EU Staff Regulations.

---