CELEX: 62019TN0757
Language: en
Date: 2020-05-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-757/19: Action brought on 6 May 2020 — HB v EIB

6.7.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 222/25
            
         
      Action brought on 6 May 2020 — HB v EIB
      (Case T-757/19)
      (2020/C 222/28)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: HB (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of 20 June 2019, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of psychological harassment;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 100 000 in compensation for the non-material damage, together with interest at the legal rate from the date of delivery;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 50 000 in compensation for the loss of a chance, together with interest at the legal rate from the date of delivery of the judgment until payment in full has been made;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of her claim for annulment, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging breach of the right to have one’s affairs handled impartially, fairly and carefully and failure to state reasons, insofar as (i) the Panel that investigated her allegations of harassment and bullying (a) failed to handle the case impartially, fairly and carefully, by showing or giving the appearance of bias towards the alleged harassers and by misrepresenting or ignoring facts and evidence, and (b) failed to state reasons, and (ii) in endorsing the report of the Panel, the President of the EIB tainted the contested decision with the same defects.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging error of assessment and breach of the EIB Code of Conduct and Dignity at Work Policy, insofar as (i) the conduct of the alleged harassers towards the applicant took the form of spoken or written acts, was improper, took place over time and was repeated, and was demeaning, (ii) by failing to categorise the disputed acts as psychological harassment, both individually and jointly, the Panel erred in its assessment of the facts and breached the Staff Code of Conduct and Dignity at Work Policy and (iii) in endorsing its report, the President of the EIB wrongly found that the applicant had not been harassed; and
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard and breach of confidentiality, insofar as (i) the applicant was not given the opportunity to submit her observations on (a) the content of the statements made by the alleged harassers and the witnesses before the Panel or (b) the other documents that were used by the Panel in its report in order to make recommendations to the President of the Bank and (ii) the Panel adopted its conclusions and shared them with third parties before it gave the applicant the opportunity to submit her observations thereon, i.e. before it allegedly finalised its report, and (iii) in endorsing the report of the Panel, the President of the EIB tainted the contested decision with the same defects.
                  In support of her claim for damages, the applicant argues that:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              she has suffered non-material damages that cannot be made good by the annulment of the contested decision;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              by rejecting her request for conciliation, illegally, the defendant deprived her of a chance of settling the matter amicably and avoiding proceedings before the General Court.