Case T-630/19: Action brought on 20 September 2019 — AH v Eurofound
Date: 2019-09-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, administrative transparency, disciplinary proceedings, harassment at work, indemnification, principle of legal certainty, psychological harassment, rights of the defence








C_2019383EN.01006801.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/68






Action brought on 20 September 2019 — AH v Eurofound
(Case T-630/19)
(2019/C 383/77)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: AH (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Foundation for the improvement of Living and Working Conditions

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 9 November 2018 closing the administrative investigation AI-2018/01 opened following the complaint made by the applicant against his superiors;










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation in respect of the non-material harm suffered, assessed at EUR 30 000;










—


order the opposing party to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of sound administration inasmuch as, in its processing of the complaint, the administration was intimidating, accusatory and did not act in an appropriate manner, both as regards procedure and as regards substance.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the tables providing for the competence of the AECE. The applicant submits, inter alia, that his complaint was dealt with by a law firm and that that complaint was therefore not dealt with by the authority authorised to do so. According to the applicant, that transfer of competences to external legal advisers prevented him from being able to exercise his right to lodge a complaint which would be dealt with in the context of the adoption and challenging of administrative decisions, in breach of the principles of legal certainty and transparency.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the lack of a decision on his request for assistance. The applicant submits in this respect that the decision adversely affecting him simply dismissed the complaint alleging harassment and closed the investigation.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to state reasons.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that both the investigators and the institution had a conflict of interests and lacked independence, neutrality and objectivity in the management of the administrative investigation and the processing of the applicant’s request and his complaint.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 24 and 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, inasmuch as the defendant behaved in a hostile manner towards the applicant from the point at which it received his complaint onwards, which is irreconcilable with the administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of staff and duty of assistance.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard effectively, inasmuch as the defendant did not allow the applicant to be heard properly regarding the plea as to the harassment to which he claimed to have been subject.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment when it analysed the complaint submitted by the applicant.