- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-864/19: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — AI and Others v ECDC (Civil service — ECDC staff members — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Prior warnings — Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Scope of the duty to provide assistance — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Opening of an investigation — Reasonable time period — Liability — Unlawfulness)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TA0864
62019TA0864
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 359/61
(Case T-864/19) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(Civil service - ECDC staff members - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Prior warnings - Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Scope of the duty to provide assistance - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Opening of an investigation - Reasonable time period - Liability - Unlawfulness)
(2022/C 359/72)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: AI, HV, HW, HY (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)
Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (represented by: J. Mannheim, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)
Re:
By their action brought under Article 270 TFEU, lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 17 December 2019, the applicants, AI, HV, HW and HY, seek compensation for the harm which they claim to have suffered as a result, essentially, of the lack of an appropriate response from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) in relation to the conduct of A (Head of Unit) towards them between 2012 and 2018, constituting, in their view, psychological harassment.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders each party to bear its own costs.
Language of the case: English.
ECLI:EU:C:2022:359
*
* * *
(<span class="oj-super">1</span>) OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.