EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018TJ0528
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 September 2019.
XI v European Commission.
Civil Service — Officials — Occupational disease — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Rejection of the request — Reply to the complaint containing medical data — Medical confidentiality — Request for deletion of that data — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Right to privacy — Liability.
Case T-528/18.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 September 2019.
XI v European Commission.
Civil Service — Officials — Occupational disease — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Rejection of the request — Reply to the complaint containing medical data — Medical confidentiality — Request for deletion of that data — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Right to privacy — Liability.
Case T-528/18.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2019:594
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 September 2019 –
XI v Commission
(Case T‑528/18)
(Civil Service — Officials — Occupational disease — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Rejection of the request — Reply to the complaint containing medical data — Medical confidentiality — Request for deletion of that data — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Right to privacy — Liability)
1. |
Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official — Decision taken after reconsideration of an earlier decision and on the basis of new facts — Decision without confirmatory effect — Admissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 20, 21) |
2. |
Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Grounds of a decision — Precluded (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see paras 29, 30, 38, 40) |
3. |
Officials — Psychological harassment — Definition — Conduct intended to discredit the person concerned or to impair his working conditions or having that effect — Requirement that conduct must be repetitive — Requirement that conduct must be intentional — Scope — No requirement that harasser should have malicious intent (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 12a(3)) (see paras 32, 37) |
4. |
Action for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 41) |
5. |
Actions brought by officials — Action for damages brought without a pre-litigation procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 53) |
6. |
Fundamental rights — European Convention on Human Rights — Instrument not formally integrated into the EU legal order (Art. 6(3) TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 52(3)) (see para. 56) |
7. |
Fundamental rights — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Respect for private life — Protection of personal data — Transfer to a third part, including within the same institution, of data concerning health — Threats to rights recognised by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter — Justification — Absence (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 7 and 8; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 45/2001, Art. 2(b)) (see paras 57, 58, 61-64) |
Re:
Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 May 2018 (Case R/56/18), rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance, based on Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, secondly, compensation for the harm which the applicant allegedly suffered.
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
Orders the European Commission to pay XI the sum of EUR 2500; |
2. |
Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
3. |
Orders each party to bear its own costs. |