ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

16 December 2013

Case F‑162/12

CL

v

European Environment Agency (EEA)

(Civil service — Temporary staff — Sick leave — Reinstatement — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Psychological harassment)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, in which CL seeks, in essence, annulment of the letter of 21 February 2012 concerning his reinstatement following extended sick leave, annulment of the decision of 20 September 2012 rejecting his complaint of 21 May 2012 against that letter, and an order that the European Environment Agency (EEA) is to pay him the equivalent of a year’s salary by way of compensation for the damage suffered.

Held:      The action is dismissed. CL is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Environment Agency.

Summary

Officials — Administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Scope — Stricter obligation where an official’s mental health is affected

(Staff Regulations, Art. 24)

The administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials reflects the balance of reciprocal rights and obligations established by the Staff Regulations in the relationship between the administration and its staff. That balance implies, inter alia, that when the administration takes a decision concerning the situation of an official, it must take into consideration all the factors which may affect its decision, and when doing so it should take into account not only the interests of the service but also those of the official concerned.

The duty to have regard for the welfare of officials requires the administration, where there is doubt as to the medical origin of the difficulties encountered by an official in performing the tasks falling to him, to take all necessary steps to dispel that doubt. Moreover, the obligations imposed on the administration by the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials are substantially reinforced when what is at issue is the particular situation of an official in respect of whom there are doubts regarding his mental health and, consequently, his ability to defend his own interests. Consequently, in that particular context, the onus is on the administration to insist on the official’s agreeing to undergo a further medical examination, in particular relying on the right of the institution to have the official examined by the medical officer, pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 59(1).

(see paras 45-46)

See:

28 May 1980, 33/79 and 75/79 Kuhner v Commission, para. 22; 29 June 1994, C‑298/93 P Klinke v Court of Justice, para. 38

13 December 2006, F‑17/05 de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission, para. 72; 28 October 2010, F‑92/09 U v Parliament, paras 65 and 85