Action brought on 29 October 2018 — ZQ v Commission

(Case T-647/18)

(2019/C 16/65)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ZQ (represented by: C. Cortese, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decisions and, in particular: (a) annul the decision of the appointing authority of 15 December 2017, registered in ARES on 18 December 2017, HR.E.2/AS/Ares (2017), concerning ‘Request for assistance D/374/17’ and rejecting that request for assistance; (b) annul, so far as necessary, the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant, N. R/187/18, HR.E.2/Ares (2018), dated 19 July 2018; (c) order the Commission to pay compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the multiple illegal acts indicated in the contested decision or to which it is closely connected, in the amount of EUR 1 000 000;

in addition,

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present action the applicant challenges the Commission’s rejection of his request for assistance regarding the harassment which he claims to have suffered on account of his sexual orientation.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. — The applicant claims, in this regard, that, from a general point of view, the manifest error of assessment is clear in the predetermined view, expressed in that decision, that the applicant’s assertions are not credible because they relate to a very long period of time during which the applicant did not present any formal complaints. — The existence of a predetermined view is, moreover, the only explanation for the fact that the appointing authority excluded from the scope of the contested decision a series of reported incidents in respect of which no assessment was carried out. — The applicant’s allegations concerning the harassment allegedly suffered were hastily downgraded to normal instances of poor organisation or normal conflict in the workplace.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of law. The applicant claims, in this regard: (a) the application of an incorrect definition of harassment, requiring malevolent intent (animus nocendi) on the part of the offending party; (b) the application of a standard of proof not corresponding to that required by the applicable law (prima facie evidence), but rather requiring proof beyond all reasonable doubt establishing the facts and their unambiguous legal classification; (c) the application of a manifestly incorrect standard of proof as regards the assessment of the credibility of the complaints in relation to the time that has passed; (d) infringement of the obligation to carry out an investigation automatically in cases where there are credible allegations.

3. Third plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons or inadequacy of the statement of reasons. — The applicant claims in this regard that, even where account is taken of the integration of the statement of reasons in the decision rejecting the complaint, the contested decision lacks, to a great extent, an adequate statement of reasons.

As regards the head of claim seeking compensation for damage, the applicant submits that all of the conditions imposed by the case-law are satisfied in the present case.