Case T-38/17: Action brought on 20 January 2017 — DQ and Others v Parliament
Date: 2017-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition (EU), corruption, damages, legal expenses, psychological harassment, sexual harassment, working conditions








C_2017104EN.01005301.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/53





Action brought on 20 January 2017 — DQ and Others v Parliament
(Case T-38/17)
(2017/C 104/74)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: DQ and thirteen other parties (represented by: Mr Casado García Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare that the present application is admissible;










—


order the defendant to pay EUR 92 200 for the material damage caused;










—


order the defendant to pay all the expenses in the context of the present action.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging various faults or omissions committed by the administration of the defendant and which caused the material damage suffered by the applicants, namely all of the lawyer’s fees incurred in the context of their request for assistance introduced on 24 January 2014 under the first subparagraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging unlawful conduct, in particular corruption detrimental to the interests of the European Union in the selection procedures of candidates, abuse and intimidation by the head of unit of the applicants in the daily exercise of their activities.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging prejudice caused by that conduct to the applicants’ dignity, and to their psychological and physical integrity adversely affecting their professional careers and their family lives.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging real and existing material damage suffered by the applicants and which is closely linked with the malice with which the European Parliament acted with regard to them, and with numerous steps they had to take, in particular as regards the need to have recourse to the advice of a lawyer.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicants’ superiors failed to respond to the applicants despite the urgency and seriousness of the facts alleged by the latter. The applicants consider in particular that those facts should have led to action on the part of their superiors in order to bring to an end:






—


the unlawful activities;










—


the abusive and intimidating conduct of their head of unit and the unreasonable deadline of the administration for taking measures;










—


their difficult work conditions, which could have avoided a continued intervention of their lawyer.














6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging exceptional circumstances which would have made the intervention of a lawyer necessary or even essential in order to safeguard the rights of the applicants and to obtain an action of the Appointing Authority to deal with their allegations of psychological and sexual harassment to which they were exposed. The intervention of their lawyer was also justified in order to ensure the confidentiality of their testimonies, and to be protected from legal inconsistencies and the negligence of their superiors, and that with the aim of bringing to an end their unacceptable work conditions.