# C_2009102EN.01002802.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/28

---

Appeal brought on 23 February 2009 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 9 December 2008 in Case F-52/05, Q v Commission

(Case T-80/09 P)

2009/C 102/43

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by V. Joris and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Q (Brussels, Belgium)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 December 2008 in Case F-52/05 in so far as it upholds the second plea alleging the unlawfulness of the implicit rejection of a distancing measure and the claims for compensation in connection with the distancing measure and disregard for the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 December 2008 in Case F-52/05 in so far as it upholds the second plea alleging the unlawfulness of the implicit rejection of a distancing measure and the claims for compensation in connection with the distancing measure and disregard for the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials;

| — | dismiss the action brought by Q before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-52/05 in so far as it was upheld by that tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action brought by Q before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-52/05 in so far as it was upheld by that tribunal;

| — | make the appropriate order as to the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and of the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

make the appropriate order as to the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and of the appeal;

| — | in the alternative,






  — | annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 December 2008 in Case F-52/05; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the alternative,

—

annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 December 2008 in Case F-52/05;

| — | refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

| — | reserve the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the Commission seeks the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (the Tribunal) of 9 December 2008 given in Case F-52/05 Q v Commission by which the Tribunal annulled the Commission’s decision rejecting the request for assistance made by Q concerning alleged psychological harassment, in so far as provisional distancing measures had not been taken, and ordered the Commission to pay to Q the sum of EUR 18 000 in damages.

Q

Commission

In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on two grounds of appeal alleging:

| — | that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that ‘a degree of failing in the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials’ constituted unlawful conduct giving rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community in so far as (i) the infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of the official in this case is not sufficiently serious to give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community and (ii) the Tribunal held that there had been infringement of that duty to have regard for the welfare of the official in this case even though there had been no psychological harassment within the meaning of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

—

that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that ‘a degree of failing in the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials’ constituted unlawful conduct giving rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community in so far as (i) the infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of the official in this case is not sufficiently serious to give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community and (ii) the Tribunal held that there had been infringement of that duty to have regard for the welfare of the official in this case even though there had been no psychological harassment within the meaning of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities;

| — | that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the implicit refusal of a distancing measure gives rise to tortious liability on the part of the Commission in so far as the Tribunal failed to establish that there had been a sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals. |
| --- | --- |

—

that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the implicit refusal of a distancing measure gives rise to tortious liability on the part of the Commission in so far as the Tribunal failed to establish that there had been a sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals.

---