CELEX: 62017TN0377
Language: en
Date: 2017-06-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-377/17: Action brought on 15 June 2017 — SQ v EIB

21.8.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 277/48
            
         Action brought on 15 June 2017 — SQ v EIB
   (Case T-377/17)
   (2017/C 277/70)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: SQ (represented by: N. Cambonie and P. Walter, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Investment Bank
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               partially annul the contested decision in so far as the President incorrectly concludes therein, first, that the practices implemented by the Director for Communication in respect of the applicant, which are referred to in paragraphs 20 to 24, 25, 31, 34, 46, 50 and 51 of the report, did not constitute psychological harassment, second, that there was no need to initiate disciplinary proceedings against that Director and, third, that the contested decision finding that the applicant had been subjected to psychological harassment must remain strictly confidential;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the EIB to pay her compensation because of (i) the non-material damage which she suffered as a result of the psychological harassment by the Director for Communication confirmed in the contested decision and award her EUR 121 992 (one hundred and twenty-one thousand nine hundred and ninety-two euros) in that regard, (ii) the non-material damage which she suffered, and which can be separated from the illegality on which the partial annulment of the contested decision is based, and award her EUR 25 000 (twenty-five thousand euros) in that regard, and (iii) the non-material damage resulting from, first, the breach by the Director-General for Personnel of the independence of the reporting procedure conducted by the Compliance Officer and, second, the intimidation of the applicant or the threat of retaliation made by the Director-General for Personnel, and award the applicant EUR 25 000 (twenty-five thousand euros) in that regard;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the EIB to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging errors of law and manifest errors of assessment as regards the categorisation of some of the practices complained of by the applicant by which the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 20 March 2017 (‘the contested decision’) is vitiated. This plea is divided into two parts:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           First part, alleging errors of law in the application of the requirement that acts of psychological harassment must be repetitive;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Second part, alleging manifest errors of assessment resulting from the fact that some of the practices complained of were objectively such as to damage self-confidence and self-esteem.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging errors connected with a failure to initiate disciplinary proceedings, and divided into two parts:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           First and main part, alleging an error of law;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Second part, raised in the alternative, alleging a manifest error of assessment and/or infringement of the principle of proportionality.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging errors of law and manifest errors of assessment as regards the obligation imposed on the applicant to keep confidential the contested decision finding that she had been subjected to psychological harassment by the Director for Communication.