8The background to the dispute is set out at paragraphs 1 to 17 of the judgment under appeal, as follows:1 The [appellant], DD, was recruited on 1 August 2000 by an agency of the European Union, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now [the FRA], as a member of the temporary staff within the meaning of Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities … Initially employed under a fixed-term contract, he was given a contract of indefinite duration from 16 December 2006.2 In 2009, and then in the context of the appraisal exercise relating to 2011 and, in particular, in bringing an internal appeal in accordance with the internal rules of the FRA against the draft appraisal report …, the [appellant] claimed to be the victim of discrimination based on his race or ethnicity.3 In the light of the words and tone used [by the appellant in the exercise of that legal remedy], the Director of the FRA initiated an administrative inquiry on 9 November 2012.4 Following a hearing held on 20 February 2013, the purpose of which was to hear the [appellant] in accordance with Articles 2 and 11 of Annex IX to the [Staff Regulations], applicable by analogy to contract staff, the Director of the FRA imposed a reprimand on the [appellant].5 Finally, by letter of 13 June 2013, the Director of the FRA informed the [appellant] of his decision to terminate his contract of indefinite duration (“the termination decision”).6 By judgment of 8 October 2015, DD v FRA (F‑106/13 and F‑25/14, EU:F:2015:118; “the annulment judgment”), the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the reprimand. The reason for that annulment was that the [appellant]’s right to be heard had been infringed, in that the Director of the FRA had omitted to communicate the conclusions of the administrative inquiry to him before the hearing of 20 February 2013 and had therefore not enabled him effectively to prepare his defence (annulment judgment, paragraph 63).7 In the same judgment, the Civil Service Tribunal also annulled the termination decision on the ground that that decision was adopted without the Director of the FRA, beforehand, having expressly informed the [appellant] that he was envisaging the termination of the latter’s contract on the basis of various incidents and that he had not invited him to express any comments he might have on that matter (annulment judgment, paragraph 90).8 The Civil Service Tribunal, however, rejected the [appellant]’s claims for damages seeking compensation for the non-material harm caused by the administrative inquiry on three grounds: first, because the [appellant] could not reasonably claim that the complaints made against him were not adequately defined for the inquiry to be initiated (annulment judgment, paragraph 74); secondly, because the fact that the administrative inquiry was conducted without the FRA having first adopted the implementing arrangements for Article 2 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and thereby defined the procedural framework of the inquiry was not such as to vitiate that inquiry (annulment judgment, paragraph 75); and, thirdly, because, although the [appellant] was heard without having been able effectively to prepare his defence, the fact remained that the [appellant] had merely referred in his application to stress and anxiety during the administrative inquiry without substantiating his claims in more detail (annulment judgment, paragraph 76).9 The Civil Service Tribunal also rejected the [appellant]’s claims for damages in respect of the non-material harm stemming from the fact that the reprimand had unfairly affected his integrity, dignity and reputation within the FRA. The Civil Service Tribunal noted in particular in that regard that, since the annulment of the reprimand stemming from a breach of the [appellant]’s right to be heard, it was not excluded that a different decision would have been adopted, had he been heard. Consequently, the Civil Service Tribunal held that the claims for damages were premature, if it is not to prejudge the FRA’s execution of the annulment judgment (annulment judgment, paragraphs 78 to 82).10 The Civil Service Tribunal also rejected the [appellant]’s claims for damages in respect of the material and non-material harm caused by the illegality of the termination decision. As regards the non-material harm, the Civil Service Tribunal found that the [appellant] had merely stated that that decision had caused him deep psychological trauma and had adversely affected his reputation and dignity, without demonstrating that that harm could not be entirely remedied by the annulment judgment (paragraph 107).11 The [appellant] brought an appeal against the annulment judgment, which was dismissed by [the General Court in the judgment of 19 July 2017, DD v FRA (T‑742/15 P, EU:T:2017:528)].12 In the meantime, from 1 March 2016, the FRA reinstated the [appellant] in his position and paid him the salary he had not received.13 Furthermore, the [appellant] had filed, on 12 April 2013, a complaint with the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on the ground that the administrative inquiry had been conducted in breach of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1). The EDPS suspended the examination of that complaint pending the annulment judgment, then pending the judgment [of the General Court of 19 July 2017, DD v FRA (T‑742/15 P, EU:T:2017:528)].14 On 18 December 2017, the EDPS considered that, since it had not established a sufficient legal framework for the opening and the conduct of the administrative inquiries, the inquiry concerning the [appellant] had infringed Article 4, Article 5(a) as well as Articles 11 and 12 of Regulation No 45/2001 … Those findings became final on 16 March 2018, following the EDPS’s rejection of requests for revision from the person concerned and the FRA.15 On 19 July 2018, the [appellant] submitted a request, under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, seeking payment of a sum of EUR 100000 by way of financial compensation for a series of unlawful acts committed by the FRA (“the request for compensation”). First, the [appellant] claimed that the administrative inquiry was opened without being based on a sufficiently serious suspicion based on evidence that he had accused his supervisor of racial discrimination and that the inquiry had rather been based on exaggeration and manipulation. Secondly, the appellant submitted that the administrative inquiry, the disciplinary proceedings, the reprimand and the termination decision constituted discrimination based on his ethnic origin. Thirdly, the [appellant] stated that the opening and the conduct of the administrative inquiry had infringed Article 4, Article 5(a) as well as Articles 11 and 12 of Regulation No 45/2001. Fourthly, the [appellant] asserted that the reprimand and the termination decision had been based on an unlawful administrative inquiry which contained offensive and defamatory language. Fifthly, the [appellant] claimed that the FRA had made offensive and defamatory remarks, that it had infringed his right to the presumption of innocence and that it acted in breach of his right to privacy and to data protection during the administrative inquiry, during the disciplinary proceedings, in the reprimand and in the termination decision, during the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal, the General Court and the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control, and as a result of the publication of the press release concerning the annulment judgment. According to the [appellant], the abovementioned conduct, taken as a whole, constituted psychological harassment. Sixthly, the [appellant] took the view that the FRA had thus infringed its duty of care by failing to take into consideration all the factors which might have affected its decisions and its conduct and, in particular, by failing to inform him as early as possible of the allegations made against him. Finally, the [appellant] added that all those unlawful acts had caused him stress, anxiety, uncertainty and feelings of neglect and disregard. Humiliated, he claimed to have also suffered from the condescension and scorn with which he was treated.16 On 19 November 2018, the [appointing authority] rejected the [appellant]’s request for compensation on the ground, inter alia, that the annulment judgment had been implemented because he had been reinstated in his position and the reprimand had been removed from his personal file [(“the decision of 19 November 2018”)].17 On 14 February 2019, the [appellant] lodged a complaint which the [appointing authority] rejected on 12 June 2019 [(“the rejection decision of 12 June 2019”)]. In [that] rejection decision, the [appointing authority] stated, inter alia, that the FRA had decided not to recommence the disciplinary proceedings and that all acts related to the administrative inquiry had been removed from the [appellant]’s file.’
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.