This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013FA0054
Case F-54/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 September 2014 — CV v EESC (Civil service — Action for damages — Administrative investigations — Disciplinary procedure — Psychological harassment)
Case F-54/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 September 2014 — CV v EESC (Civil service — Action for damages — Administrative investigations — Disciplinary procedure — Psychological harassment)
Case F-54/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 September 2014 — CV v EESC (Civil service — Action for damages — Administrative investigations — Disciplinary procedure — Psychological harassment)
OJ C 421, 24.11.2014, p. 52–52
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 18/09/2014
- Date lodged:
- 31/05/2013
- Author:
- Civil Service Tribunal
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- French
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
24.11.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 421/52 |
Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 September 2014 — CV v EESC
(Case F-54/13) (1)
((Civil service - Action for damages - Administrative investigations - Disciplinary procedure - Psychological harassment))
2014/C 421/72
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: CV (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)
Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented initially by: M. Arsène and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, F.-M. Hislaire and M. Troncoso Ferrer, lawyers, and subsequently by M. Pascua Mateo and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, F.-M. Hislaire and M. Troncoso Ferrer, lawyers)
Re:
Application for annulment of the EESC’s decision rejecting a request made by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the excessive zeal, or even harassment, on the part of the administration.
Operative part of the judgment
The Tribunal:
|
1. |
Dismisses the application; |
|
2. |
Declares that each party is to bear its own costs. |
(1) OJ C 207, 20.07.2013, p. 64.
