Action brought on 12 December 2017 — PV v Commission
(Case T-786/16)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: PV (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
Declare this application admissible and well-founded;
Consequently, order:
the annulment of the contested decisions of 31 May 2016 and 5 July 2016 on the deductions from salary, in respect of which the applicant brought claims under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations on 29 July 2016 (R/492/16) and 30 July 2016 (R/493/16) respectively, both of which were rejected on 28 November 2016;
the annulment of the contested decisions of 15 September 2016 and 11 July 2016 on the deductions from salary and the settling of the salary at zero with effect from July 2016, in respect of which the applicant brought a claim under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations on 19 September 2016 (R/496/16), which was rejected on 17 January 2017;
the annulment of the contested decision of 21 September 2016 informing the applicant of an amalgamated debt of EUR 42 704.74 to the Commission, in respect of which a claim under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations was brought on 8 November 2016 (R/556/16) and rejected on 17 January 2017;
the annulment of the contested debit note No 324417009991 of 20 July 2017 in the amount of EUR 42 704.74, demanding payment of the disputed debt of EUR 42 704.74, in respect of which a claim under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations was brought on 31 July 2017 (R/346/17) and rejected on 29 November 2017;
the annulment of the revocation decision made by the tripartite Appointing Authority on 26 July 2016 against which the applicant brought a claim under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, made on 3 October 2016 (R/510/16), which was rejected on 2 February 2017, and of the disciplinary procedure CMS 13/087 in all aspects;
compensation for the loss suffered as a result of the psychological harassment in DG Employment, DG Budget, DG Interpretation and jointly by the Medical Service, PMO and DG HR, the first incident of harassment dating back to October 2008;
the annulment of all the applicant’s 2014, 2015 and 2016 appraisal reports due to harassment in DG SCIC;
and award the following damages on the basis of Article 340 TFEU:
order compensation of EUR 889 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm and of EUR 132 828.67 in respect of the pecuniary harm suffered by the applicant as a result of those contested decisions, estimated, without prejudice to reassessment of the sum of EUR 1 021 828.67, together with late-payment interest until the date of settlement in full;
in the alternative, in the light of the harassment suffered and the ‘intentionally false statements’ used, which means that such irregularities cannot be tolerated by the EU legal order:
the annulment of all the other claims for deductions from salary for the period from March 2015 to July 2016 — namely 12 decisions of 9.2.2015, 5.5.2015, 24.5.2015, 1.10.2015, 12.11.2015, 15.1.2016, 22.4.2016, 31.5.2016, 5.7.2016, 16.9.2016 and 11.7.2016 and all the rejections of his applications for annulment, namely decisions R/1110/14 of 11.3.2015, R/225/15 of 3 July 2015, R/292/15 of 23 July 2015, R/376/15 of 18 August 2015, R/419/15 of 25 September 2015, R/496/15 of 23 October 2015, R/787/15 and R/788/16 and R/71/16 of 21 March 2016, R/282/16 of 12 September 2016;
the annulment of all the rejection decisions concerning the claims in respect of the appraisal procedures, namely the rejections R/1100/14 of 12 March 2015, R/313/15 of 11 August 2015, R/676/15 of 13 October 2015, R/127/16 and R/128/16 of 7 June 2016 and R/342/16 of 21 September 2016;
the annulment of all the rejections of the applications for assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — of 23 October 2014, 20 January 2015, 20 March 2015, 30 July 2015 (application D/322/15), 15 March 2016 (application D/776/15) and 18 May 2016 respectively;
the annulment of all the ‘medical opinions’ on unauthorised absences of Dr [X] of 16 and 18 July 2018 [sic], 8 August 2014, 4 September 2014, 4 December 2014, 4 February 2015, 13 April 2015, 4 June 2015, 11 August 2015, 14 October 2015, 4 December 2015, 5 February 2016, 22 March 2016, 18 April 2016, 3 June 2016, 30 June 2016 and 26 July 2016;
the annulment of the ‘medical opinions’ of 27 June 2014 of Dr [X] and of 10 October 2014 of Dr [Y] which returned the applicant to those harassing him;
the annulment of the rejection of the administrative claim R/182/16 of 14 July 2016 brought on 22 March 2016 concerning an unauthorised absence of 16 and 17 March 2016 at his home;
the annulment of all the debt letters of 10 March 2015, 11 May 2015, 10 June 2015, 11 August 2015, 13 November 2015, 9 December 2015, 18 July 2016 respectively and the letters giving pre-notification of the debit note of 21 June 2016 and 21 September 2016;
and in any event:
order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1, 3, 4 and 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 1e, point 2, and 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union enshrining the prohibition of psychological harassment.
2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 21a, 22b and 23 of the Staff Regulations on the prohibition of the commission of unlawful acts.
3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the duty of care and assistance, infringing Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.
4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 59 and incorrect interpretation of Article 60 of the Staff Regulations.
5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 41 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union concerning impartial treatment and the right to be heard respectively, the rights of the defence and of [Article] 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations concerning the right to be heard by the Appointing Authority before referral to the Disciplinary Board and in accordance with the case-law in Kerstens v Commission (judgment of 14 February 2017, Kerstens v Commission, T-270/16 P, not published, EU:T:2017:74).
The applicant also seeks the award of damages of EUR 889 000 in respect of non-pecuniary harm and of EUR 132 828.67 in respect of pecuniary harm in accordance with Article 340 TFEU.
____________