Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2011 - Commission v Q
(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Cross-appeal - Psychological harassment - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Communication on the policy on psychological harassment at the Commission - Duty on the part of the administration to provide assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Scope - Request for assistance - Provisional distancing measures - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Liability - Claim for damages - Unlimited jurisdiction -Conditions for implementation - Staff report - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Joris, D. Martin and B. Egger, Agents)
Other party to the proceedings: Q (Domsjö, Sweden) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)
Re:
Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 9 December 2008 in Case F-52/05 Q v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 9 December 2008 in Case F-52/05 Q v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, in so far as, at paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment, it orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay to Q compensation in the sum of EUR 500 together with the sum of EUR 15 000, in so far as that sum is intended to make reparation for the non-material damage suffered by Q as a result of the delay in opening the administrative inquiry, and, for the purpose of dismissing the application at first instance as to the remainder at paragraph 3 of the operative part, rules, at paragraphs 147 to 189 of the grounds of the judgment, on 'the complaint of psychological harassment raised by [Q]' and, at paragraph 230 of the grounds, finds that there is no need to rule on the claim for annulment of Q's career development reports drawn up in respect of the periods from 1 January to 31 October and from 1 November to 31 December 2003, respectively.
Dismisses the appeal and cross-appeal as to the remainder.
Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a ruling on the claim seeking annulment of the career development reports referred to above and on the sum to be paid to Q by the Commission solely in respect of the non-material damage resulting from the Commission's refusal to take a provisional distancing measure.
Costs reserved.
____________1 - OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.