Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:281
Date: 2000-12-05
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Obligation to assist officials;Prohibition of harassment
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Staff cases - successful;Action for damages - inadmissible

SUMMARY — CASE T-136/98 
Summary 
1. Officials - Administration's duty to render assistance - Scope - Duty of the 
administration to examine complaints of sexual harassment and to inform the 
complainant of the action taken in respect of the complaint - Requirement of 
solicitude, speed and diligence 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 24 and 90; Council Resolution 90/C 157/02; Commission 
Recommendation 92/131) 
2. Officials - Administration's duty to render assistance - Duty of the 
administration to investigate complaints of sexual harassment and to inform the 
complainant of action taken on the complaint - Sexual harassment - Definition 
(Commission Recommendation 92/131, Annex, point 2) 
1. Although Article 24 of the Staff Regulations is devised primarily to protect 
Community officials against attacks by third parties, the duty to provide assistance 
laid down in that provision also exists in a case in which the person responsible for 
the acts referred to by that provision is another official of the Communities. 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 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. 
I-A - 268 
CAMPOGRANDE v COMMISSION 
By virtue of the declaration of principle, which confirmed the essential content of 
Council Resolution 90/C 157/02 concerning the protection of the dignity of women 
and men at work and of Commission Recommendation 92/131 on the protection of 
the dignity of women and men at work, the obligation to provide assistance 
includes, in particular, the duty of the administration to examine seriously, 
expeditiously and in total confidentiality, a complaint of sexual harassment and to 
inform the complainant of the action taken in respect of the complaint. 
Faced with a request for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, the 
conduct of an administration cannot be described as diligent - in particular having 
regard to the duty, assumed by the Commission in its declaration of principle of 29 
February 1996, to examine speedily complaints of sexual harassment and to inform 
the complainant of the action taken in respect of the complaint - where, without 
any valid justification to support it, an official is required to submit a complaint 
under Article 90(2) in order to learn what action was taken on his request for 
assistance and, subsequently, to bring an appeal in order to learn the outcome of the 
inquiry opened on the basis of that complaint. 
In matters of sexual harassment, uncertainty regarding the action which the 
administration intends to take in respect of a complaint is always to the detriment 
of the dignity of both the complainant and the person complained of, and is always 
to be avoided, even where the conduct complained of has ceased long before and 
there is no longer any question of protecting the victim from its being repeated. 
(see paras 41-43, 54, 55) 
See: 18/78 V v Commission [1979] ECR 2093, para. 15; 224/87 Koutchoumoff v 
Commission [1989] ECR 99, paras 15 and 16; T-5/92 Tallarico v Parliament [1993] ECR 
II-477, paras 30 and 31 
I-A - 269 
SUMMARY — CASE T-136/98 
2. According to paragraph 2 of the code of practice intended to combat sexual 
harassment annexed to the Commission's recommendation 92/131, in order for 
conduct of a sexual nature to be described as harassment, it is not necessary that it 
be considered serious by the person suffering it. Likewise, there is nothing in the 
code of practice to suggest that the opening of an inquiry to establish the facts 
giving rise to a complaint of sexual harassment and, where appropriate, the 
imposition of a sanction on the person found guilty are not necessary if the 
complainant proves not to have suffered material damage as a result of acts of 
sexual harassment or if the person accused of it did not intend to humiliate his 
victim. On the contrary, it is clear from the wording of paragraph 2 of the code of 
practice that neither the motives nor the intention of the person responsible for the 
conduct in question and the actual consequences of such conduct are relevant. 
Furthermore, it is not necessary, in order to open an administrative inquiry, that the 
complainant prove to have clearly indicated to the person who, in their view, 
harassed them that the conduct in question was unwanted where the conduct, if 
proven, is not such as a reasonable person of the same sex as the complainant would 
consider to be merely the manifestation of sexual interest. 
(see paras 46-48) 
I-A - 270