62023TJ0295_RES
Cases T‑295/23 and T‑1176/23
WUvEuropean Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 October 2025 (Extracts)
(Civil service – Members of the temporary staff – Administrative inquiry – Article 12a of the Staff Regulations – Psychological harassment – Request for assistance – Refusal of the request – Article 24 of the Staff Regulations – Duty to exercise due care – Liability)
Officials – Obligation of the administration to provide assistance – Scope – Duty of the administration to examine complaints of harassment – Requirements of solicitude and rapidity – Obligation to inform the applicant of the outcome of his or her request
(Staff Regulations, Arts 12a and 24)
(see paragraphs 37-42)
Officials – Psychological harassment – Concept – Examination of a number of events taken as a whole
(Staff Regulations, Art. 12a)
(see paragraph 44)
Officials – Obligation of the administration to provide assistance – Scope – Duty of the administration to examine complaints of harassment – Requirements of solicitude and rapidity – Designation of external investigators without decision-making powers to issue an opinion on the liability of the alleged harasser – Not permissible
(Staff Regulations, Arts 12a and 24)
(see paragraph 47)
Officials – Obligation of the administration to provide assistance – Scope – Duty of the administration to examine complaints of harassment – Requirements of solicitude and rapidity – Division of the complaint into parts, entrusted to separate authorities, respectively, for the examination of the allegations – Failure to carry out an overall assessment of the facts complained of – Not permissible – Consequences – Annulment
(Staff Regulations, Arts 12a and 24)
(see paragraphs 48-54)
Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Concept – Application in proceedings concerning the Staff Regulations – Criteria
(Arts 268, 270 and 340, second para., TFEU; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
(see paragraphs 60-63)
Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Elements to be taken into consideration – Extent of the administration’s discretion
(Art. 270 TFEU)
(see paragraph 64)
Officials – Obligation of the administration to provide assistance – Scope – Duty of the administration to examine complaints of harassment – Duty to act within a reasonable time – Scope
(Staff Regulations, Arts 12a and 24)
(see paragraphs 70-77)
Officials – Obligation of the administration to provide assistance – Scope – Duty of the administration to examine complaints of harassment – Duty of confidentiality – Scope
(Staff Regulations, Arts 12a and 24)
(see paragraphs 82, 85, 86, 88)
Résumé
Upholding actions brought by a member of the temporary staff of the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) against two decisions rejecting his request for assistance, the General Court clarifies the content of the obligation to exercise due care incumbent on the administration when it implements its obligation to provide assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’).
In May 2021, the applicant submitted a request for assistance on the basis of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, alleging repeated conduct of psychological harassment committed by 10 staff members of Eurojust, but all of which emanated from the conduct of the Administrative Director of that agency. In respect of the staff of Eurojust, the Administrative Director exercises the powers conferred on the appointing authority and on the authority entitled to conclude contracts of employment (‘the AECCE’). At the applicant’s request, the Administrative Director recused himself from the procedure for processing the request for assistance.
Following that recusal, Eurojust divided the processing of the request for assistance into two parts, by entrusting the AECCE’s powers to two different bodies. The College of Eurojust, designated to examine the allegations against the Administrative Director (‘part 1’), delegated its AECCE powers to three of the national members of which it was composed. The Executive Board of Eurojust, for its part, was designated to examine the allegations against the other nine staff members (‘part 2’).
In June 2021, the national members to whom powers had been delegated and the Executive Board opened an administrative inquiry in respect of parts 1 and 2, respectively, the conduct of which they entrusted to external investigators. On the basis of the inquiry report drawn up by the external investigators, the College and the Executive Board decided to close that inquiry with no further action for their respective parts. They subsequently rejected the two complaints lodged by the applicant against those decisions.
By his two actions before the General Court, the applicant seeks annulment of the decisions rejecting the complaints and compensation for the harm allegedly suffered.
Findings of the Court
The Court begins by recalling that Article 24 of the Staff Regulations imposes on the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union an obligation to provide assistance in order to protect EU officials from attacks and ill-treatment not only by third parties, but also by other officials or other staff members of the European Union, irrespective of their hierarchical position, or by members of an institution. In cases of allegations of harassment, the duty to provide assistance includes, in particular, the duty of the administration to examine seriously, expeditiously and in total confidentiality the request for assistance in which psychological harassment is alleged and to inform the applicant of the outcome.
The principle of good administration, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, includes a duty of care on the part of the EU administration, which must act with care and caution.
The Court notes in that regard that, since psychological harassment is part of a continuous process over time, it may, by definition, be the outcome of a set of different acts which, considered in isolation, would not necessarily constitute per se psychological harassment but which, viewed as a whole and in context, including because of their build-up over time, could be regarded as such. Such facts must therefore be examined both individually and jointly as part of the general working environment.
In the light of those considerations, the General Court finds that, in the present case, the Executive Board asked the external investigators to investigate only the facts relating to part 2 and not all the facts alleged in the request for assistance. It was only subsequently that the national members to whom powers had been delegated by the College extended the task initially entrusted to the external investigators to the facts relating to part 1.
First, the drawing up of a single inquiry report by external investigators, even if the latter were to be regarded as impartial, is not sufficient to satisfy all the requirements imposed on Eurojust by virtue of its duty to provide assistance. Those investigators were not vested with the powers of the appointing authority or the AECCE and their sole competence was to draw up an inquiry report and, where appropriate, to issue an opinion on the responsibility of the persons concerned by that inquiry.
Second, since the psychological harassment alleged in the request for assistance could be carried out by several persons performing duties within Eurojust and acting in a coordinated manner or, at the very least, simultaneously, the examination of the allegations by one AECCE in respect of a part of those allegations and by a different AECCE in respect of the other part, infringes the administration’s obligation to examine with care and caution all the relevant information in the case before it. Indeed, such an examination is liable to preclude an overall and contextual assessment of all the facts complained of as characterising the existence of the psychological harassment alleged and to disregard, in the assessment of those facts, the interactions which may have existed between the persons to whom those acts are imputed and between the conduct alleged against them.
The General Court considers that, in the present case, by dividing the request for assistance into two parts entrusted to two separate AECCEs without allowing them to make an overall and contextual assessment of all the facts complained of in that request, Eurojust did not satisfy the duty to exercise due care inherent in the principle of good administration in the light of which it is required to implement its duty to provide assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.
As regards the consequences of the procedural irregularities and failure to observe the principle of good administration for the legality of the contested decisions, the Court observes that the existence of interactions between the various protagonists and between all the facts alleged constitutes an essential factor on which that request for assistance was based. By dividing the request for assistance into two parts entrusted to two separate AECCEs, Eurojust did not give that of the two AECCEs which was competent to do so the possibility of examining the interactions that might exist between the Administrative Director and the other persons referred to in the request for assistance.
Thus, it cannot be ruled out that, without the breach of the duty to exercise due care, the content of the decision lawfully adopted by the competent AECCE could have been different and could have led to the finding of the existence of harassment. Consequently, the Court annuls the contested decisions and dismisses the actions as to the remainder.