Harassment cases are among the most difficult situations a staff member can face, and the way an administration handles a request for assistance can be just as important as the underlying allegations. Therefore, we would like to recall the judgment in Case T-145/24, CU v European External Action Service (EEAS) [1], delivered by the General Court of the European Union. It provides important clarification on the procedural safeguards that must apply when staff seek assistance under Article 24 of the staff regulations in relation to allegations of psychological harassment.
The Court annulled the EEAS decision insofar as it concerned the applicant’s request for assistance against one of the persons concerned and awarded the applicant €4,000 in compensation for non-material damage.
The right to be heard is essential
The Court recalled that, although the Staff Regulations do not establish a specific procedure for dealing with requests for assistance under Article 24, a decision rejecting such a request is an act that adversely affects the staff member.
This means that the staff member must be genuinely heard before the administration takes its decision.
This is not merely a formal requirement. The person who has reported harassment must have a meaningful opportunity to explain their position and respond to the information on which the administration intends to base its decision.
Staff must receive information from the investigation
The Court went further and clarified the minimum information that should be communicated to the person who has made the complaint.
The applicant must, at a minimum, receive a summary of the statements made by the person accused of harassment and by the witnesses interviewed during the investigation.
This is particularly important because a staff member cannot effectively defend their position or challenge the administration’s assessment if they have no meaningful knowledge of the evidence gathered during the investigation.
The judgment therefore reinforces the importance of transparency and effective participation in internal harassment procedures, while of course respecting the legitimate protection of personal data and the rights of all persons involved.
The administration has discretion, but it is not unlimited
The Court also recalled that the administration has a broad discretion when deciding what measures and means are appropriate in response to a request for assistance.
However, that discretion is not unlimited.
The EU Courts can review whether the institution remained within reasonable limits and whether it avoided making a manifest error of assessment.
In this case, the Court concluded that, given the seriousness of the allegations and the excessive length of the procedure, the EEAS had failed to put in place appropriate assistance measures following the request concerning one of the individuals involved.
Not every negative comment is harassment
The judgment also provides an important reminder that not every difficult workplace interaction automatically constitutes psychological harassment.
Regarding allegations concerning the applicant’s former immediate superior, the Court found that negative observations made to a staff member do not necessarily affect their personality, dignity or integrity where they are expressed in measured terms and are not based on abusive accusations disconnected from objective facts.
Similarly, the fact that a staff member has not been promoted for a prolonged period is not, by itself, evidence of psychological harassment.
This distinction is important. The administration must take allegations of harassment seriously, but each situation must also be assessed objectively and on the basis of the applicable legal criteria.
An excessive delay can have consequences
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment concerns the length of the procedure.
The Court found that the time taken to deal with the applicant’s request for assistance, as well as the prolonged absence of a position on the assistance measures to be provided, was unreasonable.
However, the Court did not consider that this automatically required the entire decision to be annulled on that ground. Instead, the excessive delay was relevant to the applicant’s claim for compensation.
Together with the seriousness of the allegations, the unreasonable duration of the procedure contributed to the finding that the EEAS had failed to provide appropriate assistance in relation to one of the persons concerned.
The Court therefore awarded the applicant €4,000 for non-material damage.
What does this mean for staff?
This judgment provides several important safeguards for staff who make a request for assistance concerning alleged harassment.
It confirms that:
- staff must be meaningfully heard before a request for assistance is rejected;
- they must receive sufficient information about the investigation to allow them to effectively defend their interests;
- this includes, at a minimum, a summary of the statements of the person accused and the witnesses interviewed;
- the administration must deal with assistance requests within a reasonable period; and
- where the seriousness of the situation requires it, the administration must take appropriate assistance measures.
At the same time, the judgment confirms that difficult management decisions, negative feedback or a lack of promotion do not automatically amount to harassment. The circumstances must be assessed objectively and in their proper context.
Generation 2004: procedures must protect staff
For Generation 2004, this judgment underlines the importance of having internal procedures that staff can genuinely trust.
When a colleague reports harassment or asks for assistance, the process should not add to the difficulty they are already experiencing. Staff need to know that their concerns will be examined impartially, within a reasonable time and with proper procedural safeguards.
The right to be heard and access to meaningful information about an investigation are not technical formalities. They are essential safeguards allowing staff to understand how their case has been assessed and, where necessary, to challenge the administration’s conclusions.
Generation 2004 therefore welcomes the Court’s clarification that good administration requires more than simply opening an investigation. The administration must also ensure that the person seeking assistance receives appropriate procedural protection and that the process itself does not become an additional source of harm.
If you are experiencing harassment, have submitted a request for assistance, are involved in an internal investigation, or have concerns about how your case is being handled, do not hesitate to contact Generation 2004. We can help you understand the applicable rules and your rights.
toolTips('.classtoolTips12','In English psychological harassment is more commonly known as bullying. Here it would be specifically workplace bullying.
The C(2006) 1624/3 [2] Commission decision on the European Commission policy on protecting the dignity of the person and preventing psychological harassment and sexual harassment Section 2.1 lists examples of this behaviour.
The update, C(2023) 8630 [3] Commission decision on the prevention of and fight against psychological and sexual harassment, and repealing Decision C(2006) 1624/3 point 8, page 2 lists examples of this behaviour.
Check out these videos How to tell if you’re being bullied at work? [4] and Workplace bullying [5] for more examples.
'); toolTips('.classtoolTips19','Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (\'Staff Regulations [6] (SR)\') are rules stating:
• fundamental conditions of service
• basic rights, duties and obligations of staff.
The SR have been reformed x 2 (so far):
• 2004 (Kinnock White paper)
• 2014 (Regulation 1023/2013 [7])
For a summary of stated intentions and real outcomes of those two reforms check out: European Court of Auditors, 2019, Special report no 15/2019 [8]: Implementation of the 2014 staff reform package at the Commission – Big savings but not without consequences for staff
');