do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-361/19: Action brought on 16 June 2019 — CF v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: assistant, disciplinary proceedings, harassment at work, indemnification, principle of legal certainty, psychological harassment, retroactivity of a law, rights of the defence, servant (EU)








C_2019263EN.01006101.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/61






Action brought on 16 June 2019 — CF v Parliament
(Case T-361/19)
(2019/C 263/67)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: CF (represented by: A. Daoût, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decisions;










—


Order compensation of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm caused by the contested decisions or award the applicant a provisional amount of EUR 50 000;










—


Order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action seeking annulment of the two decisions of the President of the Parliament of 16 April 2019 finding that the applicant was guilty of psychological harassment against her former accredited parliamentary assistant and issuing a reprimand against her, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the legal definition of harassment in Article 12a of the Staff Regulations of the Officials of the European Union, on the ground that the President of the European Parliament failed to take account of the constituent elements of the concept of psychological harassment laid down by statutory law and case-law.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons in the contested act. The applicant maintains that the President of the Parliament gave reasons for his first decision based on the incomplete report of the Advisory Committee and that his second decision does not meet the criteria laid down in Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration and of the rights of defence. According to the applicant, the administration failed to comply with its duty of care, to observe the principle of reasonable time, to comply with the rules governing the confidentiality of the investigation, the rights of defence, the presumption of innocence and the right of access to the disciplinary file.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the non-retroactivity of coercive rules, in that the President of the Parliament and the Advisory Committee applied a coercive rule to events prior to its adoption.
The applicant seeks, in addition, compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained. She claims that the way in which the investigation was conducted had the effect of tarnishing her reputation and caused her to lose the opportunity to stand as a candidate in the European elections.