On Friday 13 July, the European Union’s General Court ordered the European Parliament and EIB to each pay €10,000 in damages to members of staff who have suffered psychological harassment (Cases T-275/17 and T-377/17).
Psychological harassment consists of repeated or continuous intentionally humiliating treatment likely to damage an individual’s physical or psychological integrity.
Case T-275/17. In this case, an MEP’s assistance went to the General Court feeling she had been subjected to psychological harassment by the MEP, who had employed her at the previous terms of the European Parliament. The MEP – successfully – asked Parliament to end her contract on the grounds that the assistant had taken a week off without permission.
The plaintiff, feeling she had been subject to psychological harassment (humiliating and scornful language, threats, insults and screams) was rejected by Parliament when she asked for help, as foreseen in the terms and conditions for EU officials (Article 24).
The General Court says that the content and vulgarity of the words used by the MEP, which were not challenged either by Parliament nor by the MEP herself, constituted a belittlement of both of the assistant herself and of her work. It says such behaviour can in no way be regarded as befitting an MEP.
In considering that the MEP’s behaviour was not abusive, Parliament had committed an error of judgment of the facts ‘which is, moreover, a manifest error — in the light of the definition of psychological harassment.’ Due to unreasonable duration of the handling of the request for assistance, the Court awards €10,000 in damages to the parliamentary assistant, who may also request compensation for her harassment from a national court.
Case T-377/17. In this case, an EIB attachée denounced how she has been treated by a new director, accusing him of putting a halt on her career, denigrating her and addressing her in an aggressive and disparaging manner. The EIB only recognised partially that the plaintiff had been subject to psychological harassment.
The General Court considers that the EIB committed an error of law ‘in requiring that, in order to come within the definition of ‘psychological harassment’, conduct must be repeated in the same way, irrespective of the cumulative effect of the other kinds of conduct alleged in undermining the self-esteem and self-confidence of the person affected by that conduct.’
The EIB had not introduced sufficient or appropriate measures in that any disciplinary action would only be taken against the new director if new harassment took place within three years.
Finally, the General Court says the EIB ‘was not entitled to impose a level of confidentiality on its decision and on the new director’s letter of apology that amounted to prohibiting the administrator from disclosing to third parties the existence and content of those documents.’ Demanding the victim’s silence amounted to preventing her from using these elements in court action against the harasser. Due to this unlawfully imposed silence on the victim, the EIB must pay her €10,000 in damages. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)