Judgment_paragraph 92 · CH v European Parliament (F-132/14)

92In the present case, it is clear from the documents before the Tribunal that the applicant had substantiated her request for assistance with prima facie evidence. Besides the assertions she made unilaterally, explaining that Ms P. left no evidence in writing of what took place between them, the applicant gave the names of two of Ms P.’s staff who, she alleges, had witnessed all the conduct that she described and could thus corroborate her statements at a hearing. Moreover, even though the opinions of medical experts are, in themselves, not such as to establish the existence, in law, of harassment or of fault on the part of the institution in the light of its duty to provide assistance (see judgments of 6 February 2015 in BQ v Court of Auditors, T‑7/14 P, EU:T:2015:79, paragraph 49, and of 17 September 2014 in CQ v Parliament, F‑12/13, EU:F:2014:214, paragraph 127), the applicant had provided medical certificates which, for the purpose of determining whether the AECE has a duty to provide assistance, may be regarded as prima facie evidence of a perception, albeit subjective, of psychological harassment. To this was added the fact that one of the applicant’s colleagues had also contacted the General Advisory Committee set up under the Internal Rules on Harassment and had brought an action before the Tribunal on 24 March 2014 making allegations of psychological harassment against the same Member of the European Parliament.