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
C series
—
(Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistants - Psychological harassment - Administrative inquiry - Request for access to the inquiry report - Refusal of the request - Obligation to state reasons - Scope of the duty to provide assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Principle of good administration - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Liability)
(C/2025/1761)
Language of the case: French
Applicants: TU, BY (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)
Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Boytha and S. Bukšek Tomac, acting as Agents)
By their action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicants seek (i) the annulment of the decisions of the European Parliament of 9 and 28 March 2023 by which they were refused access to the inquiry report of 17 June 2022 regarding acts of harassment to which they were subjected in the course of their duties, drawn up by the Advisory Committee responsible for examining harassment complaints concerning Members of the European Parliament, and (ii) compensation for the damage which they claim to have suffered.
The Court:
Annuls the decisions of the European Parliament of 9 March 2023 and of 28 March 2023 by which the requests, made by BY and TU respectively, for access to the administrative inquiry report drawn up in relation to acts of harassment against them were refused;
Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
—
(1)
OJ C C/2024/1708, 4.3.2024.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1761/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—