Case F-62/07: Action brought on 20 June 2007 — De Fays v Commission
Date: 2007-08-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, professional career, promotion, psychological harassment

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/53

Action brought on 20 June 2007 — De Fays v Commission

Action brought on 28 June 2007 — S v European
Parliament

(Case F-62/07)

(2007/C 199/102)

Language of the case: French

(Case F-64/07)

(2007/C 199/103)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Chantal De Fays (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
P. -P. Guhuchten and Ph. Reyniers, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul

the Commission's decision of 16 March 2007

dismissing the Applicant's pre-litigation claim for damages;

— order the Commission to pay the amount of EUR 25 000;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant brought a complaint against
the Authorising
Authority's decision of 15 September 2006 awarding her
damages of EUR 500 only as compensation for non-material
loss suffered as a result of the drawing up of her Career Devel-
opment Reports (CDR)
for 2003, 2004 and 2005. By the
contested decision the Authorising Authority dismissed that
complaint.

In support of her action, the applicant submits that the proce-
dures for drawing up the CDR at issue were late and created a
state of uncertainty as to the development of her career. More-
over, the repetition in each of the CDRs of allegedly hurtful and
inappropriate content gave rise to non-material damage. The
Commission failed to respect the obligations placed on it by the
principles of respect for human dignity, sound administration,
the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and, by
the Community rules applicable to harassment at
analogy,
work (1).

(1) Directive 2006/54/EC of

the European Parliament and of

the
Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of
equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in
matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204,
p. 23); Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 imple-
menting the principle of equal treatment between men and women
in the access to and supply of goods and services (OJ 2004 L 373,
p. 37); Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive
76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treat-
ment for men and women as regards access to employment, voca-
tional training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 2002
L 269, p. 15).

Parties

Applicant: S (represented by: R. Mastroianni and F. Ferraro,
lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— annul Decision No 305747 of the European Parliament of

29 March 2007 rejecting his complaint;

— annul the European Parliament's decision of 27 July 2006
reassigning him to Brussels and appointing him adviser to
the Director General for Information;

— annul all acts, previous, concomitant or consequential, and

in any way connected;

— order

the European Parliament

to indemnify the loss
in the sum of
sustained as a result of
EUR 400 000 or such greater or lesser sum as the Court
may think fit;

that decision,

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action the applicant puts forward seven pleas
in law which may be summarised as follows:

1. the decision to reassign him was unlawful

lack of
reasoning explaining why the Parliament had decided to
transfer the applicant to its seat in Brussels;

for

2. the decision to reassign him,

involving the removal of a
seriously sick person to a distant place, was contrary to the
fundamental right to health enshrined in Articles 3(p) and
152 EC, and in Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental
the European Union. Protecting the applicant's
Rights of
health ought
the
to have prevailed over the interests of
service;

impartiality,

3. the Parliament breached its duty to have regard to the
welfare of officials, and the principles of proper administra-
transparency and legal certainty. As a
tion,
matter of
the institution failed to carry out, before
adopting the decision to reassign the applicant, an adequate
investigation of the hostile attitudes with which the applicant
was confronted or to have the effects of such a decision on
his health evaluated from a medical point of view;

fact,