CELEX: C1998/327/57
Language: en
Date: 1998-10-24 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 20 August 1998 by 'G' against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-136/98)

24.10.98             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 327/33
decision of 7 August 1997 was properly adopted by the                Ð hold that the defendant is obliged to make reparation
defendant, which had not received any false or incomplete                 for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant
information from her. In fact, it constitutes the final step              as a result of the illegality of the contested decision
in a procedure initiated, following the intervention of the               and order the defendant to pay damages to be
Ombudsman, between the applicant herself and the                          determined by the Court;
[acting] head of the unit to which she was to be
transferred. Furthermore, she considers there to be no
public interest which could override her interest in the             Ð order the defendant to pay             the   costs  of the
continuation of a situation which she was entitled to                     proceedings.
regard as permanent. An alleged lack of information from
certain people within DG I, which is the basis for the
contested decision, clearly cannot be assimilated to a
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
public interest.
                                                                     The applicant accuses the appointing authority of having
The applicant also alleges a breach of the duty to state             failed to take action in the face of the sexual harassment,
reasons, in that the contested decision does not contain             coupled with harassment in connection with work,
any statement of reasons, not even a standard phrase.                allegedly suffered by the applicant at the hands of her
Furthermore, and in so far as it became apparent during              immediate superior.
the inter-departmental meeting that the contested decision
was based on an alleged lack of information from the
immediate superior to the head of the unit to which she
                                                                     In support of her claims she raises the following pleas in
was to be transferred, she claims that, even if the duty to
                                                                     law:
state reasons was satisfied on that basis, the contested
decision should in any event be considered to be based on
grounds which are invalid, since the procedures for
informing and obtaining the approval of the hierarchy                Ð Misuse of powers and infringement of Articles 12, 24
within DG I been complied with.                                           and 25 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
                                                                          European Communities, of Council Directive 76/207/
                                                                          EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the
                                                                          principle of equal treatment for men and women as
The applicant concludes by claiming that the appointing                   regards access to employment, vocational training and
authority acted in breach of the duty to have regard for                  promotion and working conditions (1), of the Council
the welfare of officials and the interest of the service.                 Resolution of 29 May 1990 on the protection of the
                                                                          dignity of women and men at work (2), of the
                                                                          Commission's Recommendation (92/131/EEC) of
                                                                          27 November 1991 on the protection of the dignity of
                                                                          women and men at work (3) and of the code of
                                                                          practice intended to combat sexual harassment
                                                                          annexed to the Commission's Recommendation 92/
Action brought on 20 August 1998 by G' against                           131/EEC of 27 November 1991.
        Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-136/98)
                                                                     Ð Breach of the general principles of legal certainty and
                        (98/C 327/57)                                     of the protection of legitimate expectations, in so far
                                                                          as the applicant, who was encouraged by the adoption
                                                                          and distribution of encouraging rules to submit a
                                                                          complaint against the person harassing her, came up
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          against a wall of indifference and hostility.
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Ð Infringement of the rights of the defence, in so far as
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                          the applicant, who was heard on two occasions during
Instance of the European Communities on 20 August
                                                                          the administrative enquiry concerning the facts under
1998 by G', represented by Anne Krywin, of the Brussels
                                                                          investigation, was never given access to the file
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          resulting from that enquiry. Furthermore, she claims
Chambers of AndreÂ Lutgen, 1 Rue Jean-Pierre Brasseur.
                                                                          that the enquiry was conducted with insufficient
                                                                          objectivity and impartiality.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 157, 27.6.1990, p. 3.
                                                                     (1) OJ L 49, 24.2.1992, p. 1.
Ð annul the implied decision rejecting complaint
    No R/18/98 submitted on 21 January 1998 by the
    applicant;