CELEX: 62017CN0558
Language: en
Date: 2017-09-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-558/17 P: Appeal brought on 22 September 2017 by OZ against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2017 in Case T-607/16: OZ v European Investment Bank

18.12.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 437/17
            
         Appeal brought on 22 September 2017 by OZ against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2017 in Case T-607/16: OZ v European Investment Bank
   (Case C-558/17 P)
   (2017/C 437/21)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: OZ (represented by: B. Maréchal, avocat)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the judgment in Case T-607/16 under appeal in whole;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision from Dr. Werner Hoyer, President of the EIB dated 16 October 2015 rendered in the framework of DAW procedure launched by OZ’s request dated 20 May 2015 towards the supervisor Mr. F, as investigated by the Investigation Panel and annul the Report dated 14 September 2015 related to the request filed by OZ, in which the complaint of OZ has been rejected and inappropriate recommendations have been included;
            
         
               —
            
            
               compensation for medical costs as a result of the damage suffered by OZ in an amount of (i) EUR 977 to date (including VAT) and (ii) a provisional amount of EUR 5 850 for future medical costs;
            
         
               —
            
            
               damages in relation to the moral prejudice suffered amounting to EUR 20 000;
            
         
               —
            
            
               legal fees for the current proceedings amounting to EUR 35 100 (including VAT);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the EIB to pay the costs of this proceeding in appeal and before the General Court;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the re-opening of the DAW procedure by EIB and/or a new decision from the President of the EIB.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017, OZ v European Investment Bank (Case T-607/16) by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the President of the EIB, dated 16 October 2015, given within the framework of the dignity at work investigation procedure launched by OZ’s dignity at work request dated 20 May 2015, concerning Mr. F, regarding sexual harassment allegations as investigated by the Investigation Panel and annulment of the report by the investigation panel, dated 14 September 2015, related to the dignity at work request filed by OZ on 20 May 2015 (‘the Decision and the Report at issue’).
   The case is related to sexual harassment allegations raised by OZ regarding the supervisor, Mr. F, which occurred between 2011 and 2014 and led OZ to initiate a formal dignity at work procedure filed on 20 May 2015.
   In accordance with the dignity at work procedure, an investigation panel has issued a report, dated 14 September 2014, on the basis of which the President of the European Investment Bank has given a decision dated 16 October 2015.
   The appellant claims that: (i) there have been several irregularities during the process of the investigation procedure, in particular with respect to violations related to OZ’s right to due process, fair hearing (as set forth in Article 6 of the European convention of human rights (‘ECHR’) and Article 47 of the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (‘CFR’) and (ii) both the report and the Decision contain several elements which are not only irrelevant for the treatment of OZ’s complaint about sexual harassment, which pertains to the private life of OZ and should thus be removed, or are irrelevant and exceed the scope of the investigation.
   After having unsuccessfully tried to find an amicable settlement of the dispute, notably by the launching of a conciliation procedure based on Article 41 of the European Investment Bank’s staff regulations (the failure of which has been established on 22 April 2016), OZ, through the lawyer, Me Benoit Maréchal, lodged an application with the European Union Civil Service Tribunal for annulment of the decision and report.
   By judgment of 13 July 2017 the General Court dismissed the action. The General Court considered that the European Investment Bank had not committed unlawful acts towards OZ within the framework of the sexual harassment investigation procedure and dismissed the claim for damages.
   OZ is lodging the present appeal relying on the grounds of infringement of European Union law by the General Court and tries to demonstrate EIB’s liability.
   
               —
            
            
               First Plea in law: infringement of the dignity at work procedure and of Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the CFR: the principle of the right of OZ to due process, fair hearing and fair proceedings, in accordance with Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, has been infringed during the investigation of the harassment request.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Second Plea in law: infringement of Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 7 of the CFR: insertion of irrelevant elements and comments integrated in the report and the decision of the EIB’s President — violation of the right of OZ to respect for a private life.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Third Plea in law: infringement on the ground of denial of justice as the General Court did not rule based on the facts and legal basis submitted.