Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2015:153
Date: 2015-12-16
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

Summary 1. Officials — Obligation of administration to provide assistance — Scope (Staff Regulations, Art. 24) 2. Officials — Rights and obligations — Internal inquiry into alleged psychological harassment — Complainant’s right to be heard (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 12a) 1. Under the duty to provide assistance imposed upon it by Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, 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 establishing the facts and taking the appropriate action in full knowledge of the facts. To that end, it is sufficient that an official who is seeking the protection of his institution provide at least some evidence of the reality of attacks of which he claims to have been the victim. When such evidence is provided, the institution concerned is under an obligation to take the necessary measures, in particular to undertake an administrative inquiry, with the cooperation of the complainant, to determine the facts which gave rise to the complaint. Where a member of staff makes a request for assistance, he must provide at least some evidence of the reality of the attacks of which he claims to have been the victim, it being understood that, since the administration is required to examine the material which is provided to it in that request in order to decide what measures are necessary, the request for assistance must be as precise and complete as possible. Furthermore, upon a request for assistance being made, an obligation arises on the part of the institution concerned to adopt the appropriate measures, in particular by considering whether it is appropriate to open an administrative inquiry, with the cooperation of the complainant. (see paras 41, 48) See: Judgments of 16 May 2012 in AF v Commission, F‑61/10, EU:F:2012:65, paragraph 71, and 11 July 2013 in Tzirani v Commission, F‑46/11, EU:F:2013:115, paragraph 108 and the case-law cited therein 2. The situation of a person who has made a complaint of psychological harassment cannot be treated in the same way as that of the person against whom the complaint is made, and the procedural rights which are to be recognised for the person accused of harassment must be distinguished from the more limited rights possessed, in the course of the administrative proceedings, by the person claiming to have been the victim of harassment. That person may nevertheless rely, under the principle of good administration, on the right to be heard as to the facts concerning him, inasmuch as a decision rejecting a request for assistance relating to alleged psychological harassment may have serious consequences, given that incidents of psychological harassment may have extremely destructive effects on the victim’s health and that, in the event of the administration acknowledging that psychological harassment has taken place, that fact itself may have a beneficial effect on the therapeutic process of recovery of the person who has suffered harassment. (see para. 43) See: Judgment of 23 September 2015 in Cerafogli v ECB, T‑114/13 P, EU:T:2015:678, paragraph 40 Judgments of 16 May 2012 in Skareby v Commission, F‑42/10, EU:F:2012:64, paragraphs 46 to 48, and 23 October 2013 in BQ v Court of Auditors, F‑39/12, EU:F:2013:158, paragraph 72