This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018TN0730
Case T-730/18: Action brought on 12 December 2018 — DQ and Others v Parliament
Case T-730/18: Action brought on 12 December 2018 — DQ and Others v Parliament
Case T-730/18: Action brought on 12 December 2018 — DQ and Others v Parliament
OJ C 54, 11.2.2019, p. 31–31
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
11.2.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 54/31 |
Action brought on 12 December 2018 — DQ and Others v Parliament
(Case T-730/18)
(2019/C 54/45)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: DQ and eleven other applicants (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)
Defendant: European Parliament
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
Declare this application admissible and well-founded; |
Accordingly,
|
— |
Annul the implied decision to reject the claim for compensation (‘the contested decision’) brought by the applicants on 13 December 2017 pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations; |
|
— |
annul, if necessary, the decision of 12 September 2018 rejecting the complaint lodged on 23 May 2018 within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; |
|
— |
Order compensation for the non-material damage caused by a series of acts and conduct of Parliament which must be the subject of a global assessment and which the applicants estimate, subject to re-assessment, at the sum ex aequo et bono of EUR 192 000 |
|
— |
Order the Parliament to pay compensatory interest and default interest accrued; |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants invoke the unlawful acts committed by Parliament in its capacity as employer, in particular a breach of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, infringement of their dignity, breach of their private and family life, breach of their right to the protection of medical confidentiality and breach of their right to working conditions that respect their health, safety and dignity.
The applicants claim that the facts and conduct they had complained of constituted, prima facie, genuine or, at the very least, plausible facts and conduct that give rise to a presumption of psychological harassment against them and conclude that the European Parliament was liable, in particular because of its passivity in the handling of their request for assistance based on Articles 12 and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.