CELEX: 62016TN0763
Language: en
Date: 2016-10-31 00:00:00
Title: Case T-763/16: Action brought on 31 October 2016 — PY v EUCAP Sahel Niger

9.1.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 6/46
            
         Action brought on 31 October 2016 — PY v EUCAP Sahel Niger
   (Case T-763/16)
   (2017/C 006/58)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: PY (Souffelweyersheim, France) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: EUCAP Sahel Niger (Niamey, Niger)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the present action to be admissible and well founded;
            
         and accordingly,
   
               —
            
            
               declare the Mission to be liable within the meaning of Article 340 TFEU;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the payment of compensation for the material damage suffered by the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the payment of compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, assessed at EUR 70 000;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay all of the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant invokes a single plea in law, alleging contractual breaches on the part of the Mission EUCAP Sahel Niger (‘the Mission’) which render it contractually liable within the meaning of Article 340 TFEU.
   The applicant, a former member of staff of the Mission, alleges that the Mission committed contractual breaches in relation to internal investigation procedures and procedures for the protection of victims where a claim of harassment in the workplace has been made. Due to the Mission’s failure to act and its failure to open an internal investigation, the harassment reported by the applicant continued, intensified and resulted in substantial adverse effects on his health, leading to his emergency repatriation. It was not possible for the applicant to resume his duties before the expiry of his contract.
   The applicant consequently seeks compensation for the non-material damage that he has suffered as a result of (i) being forced to endure harassment, despite having reported it, for many months, something that the Mission could have prevented, (ii) being laid off from work and (iii) the deterioration in his health and particularly the depression from which he has been suffering ever since. The applicant also seeks compensation for the financial damage resulting from the loss of his remuneration after 30 days on sick leave and from loss of the chance to have his contract of employment renewed.