Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017TJ0614

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 June 2019.
Laurence Bonnafous v Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.
Civil service — Contract staff — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Normal probationary conditions — Psychological harassment — Principle of sound administration — Duty of care — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of powers — Liability.
Case T-614/17.

Court reports – general

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 June 2019 –
Bonnafous v EACEA

(Case T‑614/17)

(Civil service — Contract staff — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Normal probationary conditions — Psychological harassment — Principle of sound administration — Duty of care — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of powers — Liability)

1. 

Officials — Members of the contract staff — Recruitment — Probationary period — Organisation of a middle interview — Time limit

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Art. 84)

(see para. 64)

2. 

Officials — Members of the contract staff — Recruitment — Probationary period — Report at the end of the probationary period — Delay in drawing up report — Validity

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Art. 84)

(see paras 72-74)

3. 

Officials — Members of the contract staff — Principles — Rights of defence — Scope — Obligation to hear the person concerned before adopting a decision to dismiss him — Observance of the rights of the defence in connection with dismissal at the end of the probationary period

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Art. 84(3))

(see paras 78, 79)

4. 

EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Documents which were not the subject of comment by the person concerned — Exclusion as evidence — Limits

(see para. 80)

5. 

Officials — Members of the contract staff — Recruitment — Probationary period — Subject-matter — Conditions for conduct — Assessment in relation to the duties performed by the probationary official

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Art. 84)

(see paras 109, 128)

6. 

Officials — Members of the contract staff — Recruitment — Probationary period — Obligation to fix objectives to be achieved

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Art. 84)

(see para. 153)

7. 

Officials — Members of the contract staff — Recruitment — Assessment of duties falling within the various function groups — Discretion of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment — Judicial review — Limits

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Art. 80(2))

(see para. 163)

8. 

Officials — Recruitment — Probationary period — Assessment of results — Assessment of the suitability of a probationary official — Judicial review — Limits — Manifest error of assessment — Meaning

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 34)

(see paras 175-179)

9. 

Officials — Members of the contract staff — Recruitment — Probationary period — Decision to dismiss at the end of the probationary period — Psychological harassment — Meaning — Dismissal in the context of harassment — Unlawfulness of the dismissal decision — Need for a link between the harassment and the grounds of the dismissal decision

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 12a)

(see paras 220-227)

10. 

Actions brought by officials — Pleas in laws — Misuse of powers — Meaning

(see paras 248, 249)

11. 

Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)

(see para. 264)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the dismissal decision of 14 November 2016 and of the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 2 June 2017, taken by the EACEA, and second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following those decisions.

Operative part

The Court:

1. 

Dismisses the action;

2. 

Orders Ms Laurence Bonnafous to pay the costs.

Top