EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :17 1JUDGMENT O F THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(First Ch amber)
9 March 2010
Case F-26/09
N
v
European Parliament
(Civil service — Officials — Action for damages — Admissibility — Psychological harassment — 
Duty to have regard f or the welfare of officials — Non-material damage)
Application:brought u nder Articles 236 E C and 152 E A, in w hich N s eeks a n order th at th e 
Parliament pay him th e sum o f EUR 12 000 b y way of compe nsation f or th e harm 
suffered, first, on a ccount of the psychological and professional harassment to which he 
was subject during th e pe riod from 16 August 2006 t o 1 May 2007 a nd, secondly, on 
account of there being no i nternal administrative investigation b y an independent body.
Held: The Parliament is ordered to pay th e applicant compe nsation o f EUR 2 000. The 
remainder of the action is dismissed. The Parliament is to bear its own costs and to pay 
three q uarters of the applicant’s costs. The applicant is to bear on e quarter of his own 
costs.
Summ ary
1. Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — Failure to take a m easure 
required b y the Staff Regulations — Failure of the institution to assist its officials — Not included — 
Exception
(Staff Regulations, Arts 24, 90 a nd 91)
2. Officials — Psychological harassment — Definition — Conduct aimed a t discrediting the person 
concerned o r at impairing his working conditions — Requirement that the conduct be repetitive in 
character
(Staff Regulations, Art. 12a(3))
3. Officials — Psychological harassment — Definition — Staff report containing negative comm ents, but 
not offensive to the official — Not included
(Staff Regulations, Art. 12a(3))
4. Officials — Actions — Time-limits — Claim for compensation addressed t o an institution — Duty to 
act within a r easonable time
(Staff Regulations, Art. 90)
2 ECLI:EU:F:2010 :17SUMM ARY—CASEF-26/09
NvPARLIAMENT
5. Officials — Reports procedure — Staff report — Failure to fix objectives
6. Officials — Actions — Action for damages — Annulment of contested m easure not providing 
adequate compensation for non-material damage
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)
1. It is, in principle, for an official who considers himself able to rely on A rticle 24 o f the Staff 
Regulations to request assistance from th e institution t o which he belongs. Only certain exceptional 
circumstances may oblige the institution t o provide specific assistance no t in response to a r equest 
from th e official concerned but on i ts own initiative. Wh ere th ere are no s uch circumstances, the 
institution’s failure to assist its officials and other staff on i ts own initiative d oes no t constitute an act 
adversely affecting them. In that respect, where an official seeks compe nsation for harm resulting from 
an institution’s failure to fulfil its duty to provide assistance, the ad missibility of the claim for 
compe nsation d epends on w hether or no t there had b een a d ecision r efusing a r equest for assistance 
at the time w hen that claim w as brought.
A letter by which an official submitted a c laim for compe nsation to the appointing authority based on 
psychological harassment and failure to fulfil the duty to have regard f or the welfare of officials cannot 
be interpreted as a r equest for assistance under Article 24 o f the Staff Regulations. A c omplaint seeking 
compe nsation for harm resulting from a b reach of the obligation t o provide assistance also cannot be 
regarded as a r equest for assistance.
(see paras 47-49)
See:
229/84 Somm erlatte v C omm ission [1986 ] ECR 1805 , para. 20
T-90/07 P and T-99/07 P Belgium and Comm ission v G enette [2008 ] ECR II-3859 , paras 101 t o 103
F-91/05 F rankin and Others v C omm ission [2006 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-25 a nd II-A-1-83, para. 24
2. Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations defines psychological harassment as ‘improper conduct’ which 
requires, in order to be established, that two cumulative c onditions be satisfied. The first condition 
relates to th e existence of physical behaviour, spoken or written language, gestures or other acts 
which take p lace ‘over a pe riod’ and ar e ‘repetitive o r systematic’ (the assumption b eing th at 
psychological harassment must be understood as a p rocess w hich necessarily takes place over time 
and th at there is repeated or continuous reprehensible conduct) and which ar e ‘intentional’. The 
second condition, separated from th e first by th e conjunction ‘and’, requires th at such physical 
behaviour, spoken or written language, gestures or other acts have th e effect of undermining th e 
personality, dignity or physical or psychological integrity of any pe rson. By virtue of the fact that the 
adjective ‘intentional’ applies to th e first condition, and no t to th e second, it is possible to dra w a 
twofold conclusion. Firstly, the physical behaviour, spoken or written language, gestures or other acts 
referred to by Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations must be intentional in character, which excludes 
from th e scope o f that provision r eprehensible conduct which ari ses accidentally. Secondly, it is no t, 
on th e other hand, a r equirement that such physical behaviour, spoken or written language, gestures 
or other acts were committed with th e intention o f undermining the pe rsonality, dignity or physical 
or psychological integrity of a pe rson. In other words, there can be psychological harassment within 
the me aning of Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations without the harasser’s having intended, by his 
reprehensible conduct, to discredit the victim or deliberately impair th e latter’s working conditions. It 
is sufficient th at such reprehensible conduct, provided th at it was committed intentionally, led 
objectively to such consequences.
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :17 3SUMM ARY—CASEF-26/09
NvPARLIAMENT
(see para. 72)
See:
F-52/05 Q v C omm ission [2008 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-409 a nd II-A-1-2235 , para. 135, on a ppeal before the General Court 
of the European Union, Case T-80/09 P
3. Where the Civil Service Tribunal has annulled an official’s staff report on th e ground, inter alia, that 
the ad ministration h ad a ssessed th e official concerned without first having set him o bjectives, that 
unlawful act, however regrettable, may no t in itself be regarded as an expression o f psychological 
harassment. Likewise, the fact that the staff report contains negative c omme nts about the official 
cannot be classified as psychological harassment where those comme nts remain within th e limits of 
the assessor’s wide discretion, and in particular do no t cross th e line into offensive o r hurtful criticism 
of the actual person o f the official in question.
(see para. 86)
4. In so far as an official has contested th e lawfulness o f his staff report within th e time-limit for 
bringing legal proceedings, and provided th at his claim for damages was brought w ithin a r easonable 
period from th e time w hen he became a ware of that report, he may submit, in a s eparate document, a 
claim for compe nsation for the harm allegedly caused by that act.
(see para. 96)
See:
T-78/96 a nd T-170/96 W v C omm ission [1998 ] ECR-SC I-A-239 a nd II-745, para. 159; T-324/02 M cAuley v C ouncil 
[2003 ] ECR-SC I- A-337 a nd II-1657 , paras 92 a nd 96; T-503/04 Pess oa e C osta v C omm ission [2006 ] 
ECR-SC I-A-2-237 a nd II-A-2-139, paras 58 a nd 59
F-125/05 T sarnavas v C omm ission [2007 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-43 a nd II-A-1-231, paras 69 to 71
5. A reporting officer who, in order to report on a n official, fails to take into consideration th e fact that 
the official was no t set any objectives in ad vance for the appraisal period commits a m anifest error of 
assessment and breaches his duty to have regard f or the welfare of officials.
(see para. 95)
See:
F-71/08 N v P arliament [2009 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-429 a nd II-A-1-2319
6. There are certain exceptions to th e rule that the annulment of an act of the ad ministration w hich 
has been challenged by an official in itself constitutes appropriate and, in principle, sufficient 
reparation f or any non -material harm s uffered. Thus, the annulment of an unlawful act of the 
administration m ay no t constitute full reparation f or th e non -material harm s uffered if that act 
contains an expressly negative a ssessment of the applicant’s abilities which is capable of offending 
him, if the unlawful act committed is particularly serious or if the annulment of the act has no 
practical effect.
4 ECLI:EU:F:2010 :17SUMM ARY—CASEF-26/09
NvPARLIAMENT
(see paras 101 -103, 105 , 107 )
See:
C-343/87 C ulin v C omm ission [1990 ] ECR I-225, paras 25 to 29
T-60/94 P ierrat v C ourt of Justice [1995 ] ECR-SC I-A-23 a nd II-77, para. 62; T-197/98 Ru dolf v C omm ission [2000 ] 
ECR-SC I-A-55 a nd II-241, para. 98; T-328/01 R obinson v P arliament [2004 ] ECR-SC I- A-5 and II-23, para. 79; 
T-16/03 F errer de M oncada v C omm ission [2004 ] ECR-SC I-A-261 a nd II-1163 , para. 68; T-155/03, T-157/03 a nd 
T-331/03 C wik v C omm ission [2005 ] ECR-SC I-A-411 a nd II-1865 , paras 205 a nd 206
F-42/06 S undholm v C omm ission [2007 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-437 a nd II-A-1-2499 , para. 44; F-46/07 T zirani v C omm ission 
[2008 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-323 a nd II-A-1-1773 , para. 223; F-27/08 S imões D os Santos v O HIM [ 2009 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-113 
and II-A-1-613, paras 142 a nd 143, on a ppeal before the General Court of the European Union, Case T-260/09 P; 
F-99/07 a nd F-45/08 B ernard v Eu ropol [2009 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-233 a nd II-A-1-1267 , para. 106