Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018TN0212

Case T-212/18: Action brought on 26 March 2018 –Romańska v Frontex

OJ C 200, 11.6.2018, p. 43–44 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

201805250751897302018/C 200/562122018TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180326434421

Case T-212/18: Action brought on 26 March 2018 –Romańska v Frontex

Top

C2002018EN4310120180326EN0056431442

Action brought on 26 March 2018 –Romańska v Frontex

(Case T-212/18)

2018/C 200/56Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Karolina Romańska (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: A. Tetkowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the application both admissible and well founded;

annul the decision of 14 June 2017 of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, headquartered in Warsaw, terminating Karolina Romańska’s employment contract on the basis of Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union;

find that the European Border and Coast Guard Agency committed acts of harassment and discrimination against Karolina Romańska;

require the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to cease committing acts of discrimination and harassment against its workers and to introduce an anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy within the Agency;

order the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to pay Karolina Romańska damages, to be fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 100000, by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

order the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to pay damages in the amount of PLN 4402 by way of compensation for the material damage suffered;

order the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to pay the costs of the proceedings in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant Agency committed acts of harassment and discrimination against the applicant. During the time she was employed by the defendant, the applicant was the victim of harassment, humiliation, scapegoating, public humiliation and other abusive conduct within her sector, of which her superiors were aware but in respect of which no action was taken.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the harassment at the Agency triggered a health disorder. In April 2016 the applicant suffered a sudden and acute health disorder, as confirmed by her medical records and for which she is still undergoing treatment. The doctors established that this health disorder was nervous in origin, caused in particular by harassment at work and burn out. The applicant incurred the medical expenses which are set out in the medical records appended to the application.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a failure to provide assistance in connection with harassment and discrimination at the defendant Agency. The applicant turned to the defendant for assistance, as referred to in the EU Staff Regulations, in connection with harassment and discrimination at the Agency. The applicant submitted a series of suggestions to the defendant as to how the situation might, in her view, be acceptably resolved. The defendant ignored the issue of the applicant’s health and remained passive, tolerating a situation that was deleterious to the applicant and allowing that situation to continue.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging discrimination against the applicant by the defendant on the basis of her gender, nationality and trade union membership. The applicant repeatedly applied for a higher position at the Agency. Notwithstanding her extensive education, command of several foreign languages, excellent annual appraisals and continuing efforts to improve her qualifications, the applicant was never promoted. The reasons for this state of affairs are discriminatory. Following the applicant’s repeated contact with the defendant concerning the acts of harassment and discrimination suffered by her, the defendant proposed that the applicant go on a mission, for which she made all the necessary preparations, including learning a foreign language from scratch to the level of being able to communicate in that language, and then the defendant cancelled the mission four days prior to departure. The defendant justified the cancellation of the mission on the grounds of the applicant’s contact with a trade union.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicant was unjustifiably dismissed. The applicant’s dismissal was unfair and unsubstantiated. The termination of the employment contract was the result of the applicant’s refusal to accept a situation in which she was subjected to harassment and discrimination at the defendant Agency.

Top