Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/40

—

(Case T-7/14 P)

2014/C 112/53

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: BQ (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: the Court of Auditors of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2013 in Case F-39/12 (BQ v Court of Auditors);

—Order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging error in law as to the requirements for the liability of the European Union to be incurred when implementing Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that the CST required that the incident incompatible with the order and tranquillity of the service have an impact on the operation of the service and the health of the protagonists, though that requirement is not provided for either by the Staff Regulations or by case-law. The appellant further argues that the CST distorted the facts in holding, first, that the Court of Auditors took all necessary measures to restore the proper functioning of the service and, secondly, that the disruption to the service had no impact on the health of the protagonists, though the Court of Auditors did not act sufficiently quickly and decisively to end the situation of conflict which caused the appellant’s permanent total disability (paragraphs 67 and 68 of the judgment under appeal).

2.Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the judicial review of legality conducted by the CST when it stated that the medical assessments setting out the existence of mental disorders resulting from psychological harassment to which the appellant was subject whilst at work do not make it possible to establish that the appellant was indeed the victim of harassment. The appellant claims that the Tribunal is not competent to question medical assessments and draw inferences to the contrary (paragraphs 69 and 70 of the judgment under appeal).

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality resulting from the CST assessing in the amount of EUR 2 000 the damage resulting from the delay of more than two years in providing the appellant with the investigation report, without providing the appellant with a statement of reasons allowing him to understand the criteria which led to the determination of that amount. The appellant submits that the CST did not take account of the context in which the damage occurred.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law in the allocation of costs.

—