EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-730/18: Action brought on 12 December 2018 — DQ and Others v Parliament

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0730

62018TN0730

December 12, 2018
With Google you find a lot.
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

11.2.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/31

(Case T-730/18)

(2019/C 54/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: DQ and eleven other applicants (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Declare this application admissible and well-founded;

Annul the implied decision to reject the claim for compensation (‘the contested decision’) brought by the applicants on 13 December 2017 pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;

annul, if necessary, the decision of 12 September 2018 rejecting the complaint lodged on 23 May 2018 within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

Order compensation for the non-material damage caused by a series of acts and conduct of Parliament which must be the subject of a global assessment and which the applicants estimate, subject to re-assessment, at the sum ex aequo et bono of EUR 192 000

Order the Parliament to pay compensatory interest and default interest accrued;

Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants invoke the unlawful acts committed by Parliament in its capacity as employer, in particular a breach of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, infringement of their dignity, breach of their private and family life, breach of their right to the protection of medical confidentiality and breach of their right to working conditions that respect their health, safety and dignity.

The applicants claim that the facts and conduct they had complained of constituted, prima facie, genuine or, at the very least, plausible facts and conduct that give rise to a presumption of psychological harassment against them and conclude that the European Parliament was liable, in particular because of its passivity in the handling of their request for assistance based on Articles 12 and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia