Case T-17/19: Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Giulia Moi v Parliament
Date: 2019-01-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, abuse of power, administrative sanction, allowances and expenses, disciplinary proceedings, harassment at work, indemnification, psychological harassment, right to justice, servant (EU)




C_2019093EN.01007001.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/70






Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Giulia Moi v Parliament
(Case T-17/19)
(2019/C 93/91)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Giulia Moi ( XX (*1), Italy) (represented by: M. Contini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


principally, annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 12 November 2018, confirming the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 2 October 2018, which imposed on Giulia Moi the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of 12 days on the ground that she psychologically harassed her two accredited parliamentary assistants;










—


in the alternative, in the unlikely and disputed event that the main form of order sought is not granted, and without prejudice to any appeal, hold that the disciplinary penalty imposed is excessive and/or disproportionate and, consequently, replace it by the penalty laid down in Rule 166(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament;










—


in any event, order the European Parliament to provide redress, to be determined on an equitable basis by the Court, in the form of the payment of compensation to AE in the amount of EUR 50 000 — or such greater or lesser amount as may be deemed appropriate by the Court — and order the President to communicate that information publicly in the plenary session of the European Parliament;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims infringement of the principle of the right to a fair hearing, due process and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.






1.


It must be noted that the disciplinary penalty in question — apparently justified by the mere reference to the report of the Advisory Committee, which, in turn and without giving any reasons, characterises the applicant’s conduct as amounting to ‘psychological harassment’ without adducing any proof — is unfounded.










2.


It is also clear that the Bureau of the European Parliament manifestly misused its powers and manifestly exercised its authority improperly, in that the facts which it is assumed were relied on by the assistants subject to the alleged harassment cannot be regarded as constituting psychological harassment for the purposes of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations.










3.


The Bureau of the European Parliament, for its part, erred and misrepresented the facts which are the subject of the decision in the light of the definition of psychological harassment as laid down in Article 12 of the Staff Regulations. Such harassment means ‘improper conduct’ in the form of physical behaviour, spoken or written language, gestures or other acts, which takes place ‘over a period, is repetitive or systematic’, resulting from intentional repeated and/or confirmatory actions that may undermine the personality, dignity or physical or psychological integrity of a person.










4.


The concept of harassment having been defined, it follows from the documents in the file that the applicant’s conduct does not in any way constitute a case of ‘harassment’ and that the limited complaints, which, moreover, covered a very short period of time, relate to the completion by the assistants of their tasks and their presence in the office, and are the result of retaliation against the applicant, who is guilty of having requested their dismissal.










5.


Furthermore, no external observer with normal sensitivity and knowledge of the professional context specific to members of the Parliament and their direct colleagues could ever conclude that the applicant’s alleged conduct was excessive and open to criticism to the extent that it undermined the personality, dignity or physical or psychological integrity of the assistants in question, particularly in the light of the generous remuneration granted to them by the Parliament.






(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.