(Civil service – Officials – Occupational disease – Psychological harassment – Claim for damages)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which K seeks, essentially, an order for the Parliament to compensate for the material and non-material damage she claims to have suffered as a result of the psychological harassment to which she was allegedly subjected between 1993 and 2001 in the context of her duties.

Held: The action is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

3. Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Fixed-sum compensation under the Staff Regulations – Claim for additional compensation under ordinary law

(Staff Regulations, Art. 73)

1.Prior to the entry into force of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations, incorporated by Regulation No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations, psychological harassment was defined as conduct which aimed, on an objective view, at discrediting an official or at deliberately impairing his working conditions.

(see para. 37)

See:

T-73/05 Magone v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑107 and II‑A‑2‑485, para. 79

2.The mere fact that the training tasks he was performing were withdrawn does not constitute evidence that an official was exposed to psychological harassment. The fact that his immediate superior, after receiving complaints about the quality of the official’s work, asked a colleague to provide him with examples of inadequate work by the official in order to ascertain whether the complaints were justified can also not be regarded as evidence of psychological harassment. Similarly, marks and assessments, even negative ones, contained in a staff report cannot, as such, be regarded as evidence that the report was drawn up for the purpose of psychological harassment.

(see paras 38-39)

See:

Magone v Commission, para. 80

3.In the event of an occupational accident or disease, officials are entitled to seek compensation in addition to the benefits received under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations where the institution is responsible for the accident or occupational disease according to ordinary law and the benefits payable under the Staff Regulations are insufficient to provide full compensation for the injury suffered.

Even if a wrongful act of an institution caused the accident or occupational disease of the official concerned, he must prove that the money paid to him under Article 73(2)(c) of the Staff Regulations has not compensated for the non-material damage suffered as a result of that accident or disease. Where the official concerned claims that the money has only compensated for the consequences of his inability to carry on an occupation until the year in which he should have retired had he not retired early on the ground of invalidity, that argument cannot be accepted since the procedure provided for in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations is intended to provide compensation in the form of a lump sum for both material damage and non-material harm which are the result of occupational disease.

(see paras 33, 43)

See:

169/83 and 136/84 Leussink v Commission [1986] ECR I‑2801, paras 10 to 14; C-257/98 P Lucaccioni v Commission [1999] ECR I‑5251, paras 19 to 22

F-23/05 Giraudy v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 198