ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

20 July 2009

Case F-86/07

**Luigi Marcuccio**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Civil service – Officials – Psychological harassment – Request for investigation – Manifest inadmissibility – Action manifestly unfounded in law)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, essentially, annulment of the Commission’s decision
rejecting his request for an investigation to be conducted into the psychological harassment he claims to have suffered during
the period when he was assigned to the Commission delegation in Angola, and an order that the Commission compensate him for
the damage resulting from that alleged psychological harassment.

**Held:**The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law. The applicant is ordered
to bear the costs.

**Summary**

1.      *Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Preparatory act – Report by the Investigation and Disciplinary
Office – Inadmissibility*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)*

2.      *Officials – Obligation of administration to provide assistance – Scope*

*(Staff Regulations, Art. 24)*

1.      As regards staff cases, acts preparatory to a final decision do not adversely affect the applicant and therefore can only
be contested incidentally in an appeal against measures capable of being annulled. Although some purely preparatory measures
may adversely affect an official inasmuch as they may influence the content of a subsequent challengeable act, those measures
cannot be the subject of a separate action and must be challenged in support of an action brought against that act.

Since the report by the Investigation and Disciplinary Office merely constitutes a measure preparatory to a final decision
which the appointing authority has been led to adopt in a particular case, claims for the annulment of that report must be
dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

(see paras 39-40)

See:

11/64 *Weighardt* v *Commission* [1965] ECR 285, 298; 35/67 *Van Eick* v *Commission* [1968] ECR 329, 341; 346/87 *Bossi* v *Commission* [1989] ECR 303, para. 23

T-309/03 *Camós Grau* v *Commission* [2006] ECR II‐1173, paras 46-58

2.      In accordance with its duty to provide assistance the administration, when faced with an incident which is incompatible with
the good order and tranquillity of the service, must intervene with all the necessary vigour and respond with the rapidity
and solicitude required by the circumstances of the case with a view to ascertaining the facts and, consequently, taking the
appropriate action in full knowledge of the facts. To that end, it is sufficient that the official who is seeking the protection
of his institution provide at least some evidence of the reality of attacks of which he claims he was the victim. When such
evidence is provided, the institution concerned is under an obligation to take the necessary measures, in particular to undertake
an inquiry, with the cooperation of the complainant, to determine the facts which gave rise to the complaint.

(see para. 47)

See:

224/87 *Koutchoumoff* v *Commission* [1989] ECR 99, paras 15 and 16

F‐63/06 *Mascheroni* v *Commission* [2007] ECR-SC I‐A‐1‐0000 and II‐A‐1‐0000, para. 36