If an official, temporary agent, contract agent or staff member of a European institution suffers psychological harassment, sexual harassment, professional isolation, retaliation or removal of duties, they may submit a request for assistance, ask for protective measures, challenge harmful decisions under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations and, where appropriate, bring the case before the General Court of the European Union. As specialists in European Union law and EU staff law, we analyse workplace harassment in the European institutions in this article.
What is considered workplace harassment in the European institutions?
Workplace harassment in the European institutions must be analysed from a specific perspective, different from the one normally applied under the national labour law of each country. In the context of the European civil service, the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union mainly use the concepts of psychological harassment and sexual harassment, especially under Article 12a of the Staff Regulations. Therefore, when an EU official, temporary agent, contract agent or staff member of an EU agency claims to be suffering workplace harassment, it must be assessed whether the facts can be classified as harassment under European Union law.
In practice, workplace harassment in a European institution may take the form of repeated behaviour, administrative decisions, degrading comments, professional isolation, hierarchical pressure, removal of duties, unjustified evaluations or retaliation. These elements must be assessed in their context and as a whole, taking into account their duration, repetition and effects on the dignity, health, career or psychological integrity of the person concerned.
Difference between a workplace conflict and harassment
Not every workplace conflict within a European institution amounts to harassment. There may be disagreements, professional criticism, internal reorganisations, changes of duties or evaluations without harassment necessarily existing. The difference lies in the repetition, the context and the conduct itself. A workplace conflict usually concerns a specific professional disagreement. Harassment, on the other hand, involves abusive, repeated or systematic conduct that may affect the dignity, health, psychological integrity or professional position of the official or agent.
💡 If these actions are repeated, humiliating, lack objective justification, or are combined with isolation, removal of duties or retaliation, they may become indications of workplace harassment.
It is very important to analyse everything as a whole. Correctly distinguishing between a workplace conflict and harassment is important.
Examples of workplace harassment in the European institutions
Psychological harassment in the European civil service
Psychological harassment in the European institutions can be understood as abusive conduct that takes place over a period of time and is expressed through behaviour, words, written messages, gestures or other acts that may undermine a person’s personality, dignity or physical or psychological integrity. This definition is important because it helps distinguish a tense but isolated professional situation from conduct that may legally qualify as workplace harassment. In an institution, there may be disagreements, pressure, differences of opinion or hierarchical conflicts without this automatically amounting to harassment. However, when the conduct is repeated, disproportionate, humiliating, intimidating or lacks justification, it may qualify as harassment.
The analysis should not be based only on the feelings of the person concerned. The situation must be assessed objectively, taking into account the conduct, the context, the hierarchical position of the persons involved and the effect of the conduct on the dignity or integrity of an official or agent placed in the same circumstances.
Abusive, repeated or systematic conduct
One of the key elements of workplace harassment in the European institutions is the existence of abusive, repeated or systematic conduct. Usually, harassment is not based on a single isolated incident, but on a series of acts which, when considered together, show professional or personal degradation.
💡 An accumulation of unjustified criticism, humiliating comments, exclusion from meetings, progressive removal of responsibilities and negative evaluations without justification may reveal a pattern of workplace harassment.
Each act may seem insufficient if analysed separately, but may become relevant when viewed as part of a wider pattern. In many cases, the pattern of conduct is more important than each individual incident.
Effect on dignity, personality or psychological integrity
For a situation to qualify as psychological harassment in a European institution, the conduct must have an effect on the dignity, personality or physical or psychological integrity of the person concerned. This effect may appear in different ways. The person may suffer anxiety, stress, loss of confidence, insomnia, professional exhaustion, sick leave or symptoms compatible with burnout. In other cases, the impact is professional: loss of duties, isolation, damage to reputation, blocked promotion or an unjustified professional evaluation. Sick leave is not always necessary for a situation to be considered workplace harassment. However, when there are medical reports, psychological certificates or documents linking the deterioration of health to the work environment, this evidence can help connect the medical symptoms with the workplace harassment.
Humiliation, degrading comments and disrespectful treatment
One of the clearest forms of workplace harassment in the European institutions consists of subjecting an official or agent to humiliation, degrading comments, public reproaches, constant irony, personal questioning or repeated attacks on their person or professional competence. These actions may take place during internal meetings, in emails, professional chat messages, annual evaluations or conversations with other members of the team. It is important to analyse the tone, repetition, context and impact on the person concerned. Professional opinions or criticism may be legitimate when they are objective, proportionate and related to performance. However, they must be carefully examined when they cause humiliation, discredit or psychological pressure.
Professional isolation within the European institution
Professional isolation is one of the most common forms of workplace harassment in the European institutions. It may consist of progressively excluding an employee from meetings, email chains, internal decisions or common projects. Isolation may be formal or informal. In some cases, the person is no longer invited to meetings in which they previously participated. In others, they are deprived of essential information needed to perform their work, excluded from communications or prevented from interacting normally with other professionals. This can seriously affect the person’s ability to work and their professional reputation.
💡 In a European institution, where professional development often depends on internal visibility, participation and performance evaluation, isolation can have particularly serious consequences.
Removal of duties and loss of role
The removal of duties can be a relevant indication of workplace harassment. This situation occurs when the official or agent formally keeps their position, but in practice loses their main responsibilities, autonomy, files or role within the team. Not every redistribution of tasks constitutes harassment. The European institutions may reorganise services, adapt teams and modify responsibilities for objective service-related reasons. However, a reorganisation should be carefully examined when it affects one person in particular, lacks justification, occurs in a context of conflict or has the effect of degrading that person’s professional position.
💡 This measure often coincides with a harassment complaint, sick leave, a negative evaluation or retaliation. For this reason, it should be taken very seriously.
Work overload, impossible tasks and contradictory instructions
Workplace harassment may also take the form of work overload, impossible deadlines, contradictory instructions or the assignment of tasks designed to make the person fail professionally. In the European institutions, there may be periods of pressure, urgency or heavy workload. This, by itself, does not constitute harassment.
However, the situation changes when the workload is imposed in a disproportionate way, without sufficient resources, with demands higher than those imposed on the rest of the team, or with the knowledge that the official or agent will not be able to comply with the instructions received. It may also be relevant if the person is later blamed for failing to meet objectives that were objectively impossible or unrealistic. In these cases, work overload may become an indirect mechanism of pressure, discredit or professional exclusion.
Unjustified negative evaluations and appraisal reports
Evaluation reports, appraisal reports and career development reports can play a central role in workplace harassment cases within the European institutions. A negative evaluation does not, by itself, constitute harassment. However, it may be an important indication when it appears in a context of hostility, a prior complaint, a request for assistance, sick leave or conflict with the hierarchy.
It must be assessed whether the evaluation is based on objective facts, whether it is sufficiently reasoned, whether it takes into account the official’s or agent’s professional record, and whether it complies with the evaluation criteria applicable within the institution. An evaluation may require detailed legal analysis when it contains no prior warning, ignores professional achievements, contradicts previous positive assessments or appears immediately after a complaint. In such cases, it is not enough to report workplace harassment. It may also be necessary to challenge the professional evaluation itself, especially if it affects promotion, mobility, contract renewal, internal reputation or the professional continuity of the person concerned.
Pressure to resign, change position or accept an unfavourable solution
In some cases, workplace harassment in the European institutions may take the form of pressure on the person to leave their post, accept unwanted mobility, not request renewal of their contract or accept an exit arrangement. These situations are often presented as a friendly solution, an internal reorganisation or professional advice. However, where there is pressure, hierarchical imbalance, implied threats or no real freedom of choice, it may be necessary to assess whether the conduct forms part of a pattern of harassment or retaliation.
💡 The analysis must be particularly careful when the person concerned is in a vulnerable situation, for example during sick leave, after having reported harassment, before an evaluation or during disciplinary proceedings.
Statistics on workplace harassment in the European institutions
There is no public and consolidated statistic grouping all workplace harassment cases reported in the institutions, bodies, agencies and other organisations of the European Union. The available data is fragmented and appears in internal reports, institutional decisions and documents from the European Ombudsman. Even so, official sources show that the problem exists and that underreporting remains relevant. In its 2023 decision on preventing and combating psychological and sexual harassment, the European Commission acknowledged that an internal 2021 survey showed that many staff members did not know where to find support and that most of those who had experienced behaviour that could be classified as psychological or sexual harassment did not request assistance from the institution.
In the European External Action Service, the 2023 Human Resources Report states that the mediation service dealt with 247 cases through informal channels, of which 14% included allegations of psychological harassment and 5% included allegations of sexual harassment. The European Ombudsman has also examined the anti-harassment policies of 26 EU institutions and agencies, stressing the importance of accessible, effective, confidential and independent mechanisms. These data confirm that harassment in the European civil service should not be treated as an exceptional phenomenon, but as an institutional risk requiring prevention, reporting channels, protection against retaliation and proper administrative responses.
Summary table on workplace harassment in European institutions
| Source / institution | Available data | What it shows | Legal interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| European Commission | 2021 internal survey cited in Decision C(2023) 8630 | Many staff members did not know where to find support and most of those who reported behaviour that could amount to harassment did not request assistance | There is a problem of underreporting and accessibility of internal support channels |
| European External Action Service | 247 cases handled through informal channels in 2023 | The mediation service dealt with a significant number of conflicts or sensitive situations | Informal channels play an important role, but do not necessarily replace a formal request for assistance |
| European External Action Service | 14% of the 247 cases included allegations of psychological harassment | Approximately 35 cases had a psychological harassment dimension | Psychological harassment appears as a significant category among cases handled informally |
| European External Action Service | 5% of the 247 cases included allegations of sexual harassment | Approximately 12 cases had a sexual harassment dimension | Sexual harassment also appears in internal mechanisms, although probably with underreporting |
| European Ombudsman | Review of anti-harassment policies in 26 EU institutions and agencies | The issue is addressed across the EU administration | Harassment prevention requires accessible, confidential, effective and independent procedures |
💡 Note: these data do not constitute a consolidated statistic of all harassment cases in the European civil service. They come from different institutional sources and do not always use the same methodology. Therefore, they should not be read as a total number of real cases.
Sources
- European Commission – Decision C(2023) 8630 on preventing and combating psychological and sexual harassment
- European External Action Service – Human Resources Report 2023
- European Ombudsman – Report on good practices in combating harassment in the EU administration
- European Ombudsman – EU personnel issues / anti-harassment procedures
- European Parliament – Resolution on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2018
- The Parliament Magazine – 2023 survey data
Statistics on workplace harassment in the European institutions
There is no public and consolidated statistic grouping all workplace harassment cases reported in the institutions, bodies, agencies and other organisations of the European Union. The available data is fragmented and appears in internal reports, institutional decisions and documents from the European Ombudsman. Even so, official sources show that the problem exists and that underreporting remains relevant. In its 2023 decision on preventing and combating psychological and sexual harassment, the European Commission acknowledged that an internal 2021 survey showed that many staff members did not know where to find support and that most of those who had experienced behaviour that could be classified as psychological or sexual harassment did not request assistance from the institution.
In the European External Action Service, the 2023 Human Resources Report states that the mediation service dealt with 247 cases through informal channels, of which 14% included allegations of psychological harassment and 5% included allegations of sexual harassment. The European Ombudsman has also examined the anti-harassment policies of 26 EU institutions and agencies, stressing the importance of accessible, effective, confidential and independent mechanisms. These data confirm that harassment in the European civil service should not be treated as an exceptional phenomenon, but as an institutional risk requiring prevention, reporting channels, protection against retaliation and proper administrative responses.
Summary table on workplace harassment in European institutions
| Source / institution | Available data | What it shows | Legal interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| European Commission | 2021 internal survey cited in Decision C(2023) 8630 | Many staff members did not know where to find support and most of those who reported behaviour that could amount to harassment did not request assistance | There is a problem of underreporting and accessibility of internal support channels |
| European External Action Service | 247 cases handled through informal channels in 2023 | The mediation service dealt with a significant number of conflicts or sensitive situations | Informal channels play an important role, but do not necessarily replace a formal request for assistance |
| European External Action Service | 14% of the 247 cases included allegations of psychological harassment | Approximately 35 cases had a psychological harassment dimension | Psychological harassment appears as a significant category among cases handled informally |
| European External Action Service | 5% of the 247 cases included allegations of sexual harassment | Approximately 12 cases had a sexual harassment dimension | Sexual harassment also appears in internal mechanisms, although probably with underreporting |
| European Ombudsman | Review of anti-harassment policies in 26 EU institutions and agencies | The issue is addressed across the EU administration | Harassment prevention requires accessible, confidential, effective and independent procedures |
💡 Note: these data do not constitute a consolidated statistic of all harassment cases in the European civil service. They come from different institutional sources and do not always use the same methodology. Therefore, they should not be read as a total number of real cases.
Sources:
- European Commission – Decision C(2023) 8630 on preventing and combating psychological and sexual harassment
- European External Action Service – Human Resources Report 2023
- European Ombudsman – Report on good anti-harassment practices in the EU administration
- European Ombudsman – EU personnel issues / anti-harassment procedures
- European Parliament – Resolution on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2018
- The Parliament Magazine – 2023 survey data
Legal framework applicable to workplace harassment in the European institutions
Workplace harassment in the European institutions is analysed under the specific legal framework of the European civil service. For EU officials, temporary agents and contract agents, the main legal framework includes the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the internal rules of each institution and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
An official of the European Commission, a contract agent of an EU agency, a staff member of the European Parliament or a statutory employee of a European body is not, in matters of workplace harassment, in the same legal position as an employee subject exclusively to the national labour law of a Member State. Their protection derives from EU law, with internal procedures and, where appropriate, subsequent access to the General Court of the European Union. Below, we explain the legal framework applicable to workplace harassment in EU institutions, agencies and bodies.
Article 12a of the EU Staff Regulations
Article 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union is the central provision on harassment within the European civil service. It expressly prohibits both psychological harassment and sexual harassment in the professional environment of the European institutions. The importance of Article 12a is that it does not only establish a general prohibition of conduct. It also helps activate specific protection mechanisms. When an official or agent considers that they have been the victim of psychological or sexual harassment, relying on Article 12a may allow them to request the institution to adopt prevention, investigation, protection and reparation measures.
From a legal point of view, psychological harassment is not limited to openly aggressive behaviour. It may take the form of repeated acts, words, gestures, written messages, decisions, omissions or conduct. Sexual harassment, in turn, includes unwanted conduct of a sexual nature. In the European civil service, this type of conduct is also treated as a form of discrimination on grounds of sex. However, not every professional conflict automatically amounts to harassment. EU case-law normally requires a global assessment of the facts, their duration, repetition, seriousness, context and effect on the dignity or integrity of the person concerned. An unfavourable hierarchical decision, a negative evaluation or an internal reorganisation is not sufficient, by itself, to prove harassment unless it forms part of abusive, systematic conduct directed against the person.
Article 24 and the institution’s duty of assistance
Article 24 of the Staff Regulations establishes the institution’s duty of assistance towards its officials. This provision requires the institution to assist an official, in particular where they are the victim of threats, insulting acts, defamation, attacks against their person or property, or attacks suffered because of their status and duties. In workplace harassment cases, this means that the institution must examine the allegations submitted, adopt appropriate measures and protect the official or agent concerned. A request for assistance under Article 24 is usually the mechanism used not to challenge a specific administrative decision, but to ask the institution to act.
💡 For example, the person concerned may request the opening of an investigation, the intervention of human resources, separation from the alleged harasser, interim protective measures or protection against retaliation. A serious request for assistance must identify the facts, dates, persons involved, witnesses, available documents, professional and medical impact, and the specific measures requested from the institution. It should be based on a precise chronology, establishing the connection between the facts and their consequences or symptoms.
The institution is required to deal with the request for assistance seriously, diligently, impartially and within a reasonable time. Where there are sufficiently concrete indications of harassment, the administration must assess whether it is necessary to open an investigation or adopt protective interim measures, even before reaching a final conclusion on the substance. An express refusal to provide assistance, a clearly insufficient investigation, an unreasoned response or the silence of the institution may be challenged through a prior administrative complaint.
Article 90: prior administrative complaint
Article 90 of the Staff Regulations governs the administrative stage prior to judicial proceedings. In workplace harassment cases, it is important because the official or agent cannot go directly to the General Court without first complying with the prior administrative procedure provided for in the Staff Regulations. It is important to distinguish between the two paragraphs of the same article.
Article 90(1) allows the official or agent to submit a request to the appointing authority so that it adopts a decision regarding their situation. Article 90(2), on the other hand, allows the official or agent to submit an administrative complaint against an act adversely affecting them. This act may be an express decision, such as the refusal of a request for assistance, the closure of a complaint, the refusal to open an investigation, a professional evaluation affected by the harassment context, a harmful reassignment or a disciplinary decision. It may also be an implied rejection when the institution remains silent.
The purpose of an Article 90(2) complaint is to require the administration to review its position before the matter reaches the Court of Justice of the European Union. At the same time, it defines the scope of the later dispute. This means that the facts, arguments and claims included in the administrative complaint will largely determine the later action before the General Court. Therefore, an Article 90(2) complaint in a harassment case must clearly identify the challenged act, explain why it negatively affects the statutory rights of the official or agent, develop the legal grounds, invoke the applicable rules and request specific measures. See our article for more information on how to access the Court of Justice of the European Union.
💡 Common legal grounds may include infringement of Article 12a, breach of the duty of assistance under Article 24, lack of diligence, absence of an effective investigation, lack of reasoning, breach of the right to be heard, breach of the duty of good administration or retaliation.
The complaint must be submitted within three months from the notification of the act adversely affecting the person concerned, or from the date on which the implied rejection decision arises. The institution normally has four months to reply. If it does not reply within that period, an implied rejection is deemed to exist, which opens the way to judicial proceedings. For more information on Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, see our article on the prior administrative complaint under Article 90(2) of the EU Staff Regulations.
Article 91: action before the General Court of the European Union
Article 91 of the Staff Regulations governs the judicial stage. Once the prior administrative procedure has been exhausted, the official or agent may bring the case before the EU courts to challenge the institution’s harmful decision. Disputes involving EU officials are brought before the General Court of the European Union. An action before the General Court may pursue different objectives. The most common one is the annulment of the challenged decision. However, where appropriate, compensation may also be claimed for material or moral damage caused by the institution’s conduct. In harassment cases, moral damage may be especially important, particularly where the administration failed to act with the required diligence, minimised the complaints, unjustifiably delayed the investigation or forced the official to remain in a harmful professional environment.
It is important to understand that there is a direct relationship between the administrative complaint under Article 90(2) and the action under Article 91. The judicial action must remain consistent with the prior complaint. For this reason, the technical quality of the administrative complaint is decisive for the admissibility of the later judicial proceedings. We always recommend that this type of complaint be drafted by a lawyer.
💡 In this type of litigation, the General Court examines whether the institution complied with its legal and procedural obligations. In particular, it may assess whether the administration examined the facts seriously and impartially, whether it gave adequate reasons for its decision, whether it respected the right to be heard, whether it adopted proportionate measures, whether it sufficiently protected the official or agent, and whether it acted reasonably.
Article 41 of the Charter: right to good administration
Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union recognises the right of every person to have their affairs handled by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time. In workplace harassment cases, the institution cannot simply receive a complaint and close it automatically or superficially. It must examine the facts objectively, avoid conflicts of interest, properly hear the person concerned, give reasons for its decisions and handle the procedure diligently.
The right to good administration includes several elements. First, the right to be heard before any decision that adversely affects the person is taken. Second, the right of access to the file, subject to the limits of confidentiality, data protection and witness protection. Third, the obligation to give reasons for administrative decisions. Finally, the requirement of impartiality, both objective and subjective, of the persons responsible for examining the complaint. This article is also important when harassment occurs in the context of a return to work after sick leave. The institution must act with caution, coordination and proportionality, taking into account the health of the official or agent, medical recommendations and the obligation not to expose the person again to a potentially hostile environment.
Article 31 of the Charter: fair and dignified working conditions
Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union recognises the right of every worker to working conditions that respect their health, safety and dignity. Harassment may also constitute a breach of dignified working conditions when the institution fails to properly prevent the situation or protect the official or agent concerned.
Article 31 reinforces the idea that the European administration must not only refrain from harassment, but must also organise the working environment in a way that is compatible with the health and dignity of its staff. This obligation is particularly important when the situation affects mental health, causes burnout, anxiety or depression, or makes professional reintegration more difficult. In workplace harassment cases, Article 31 may be invoked together with Article 12a of the Staff Regulations, Article 24 and Article 41 of the Charter to argue that the institution had a positive duty of protection. This duty requires concrete, effective measures adapted to the situation.
European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour
The European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour is a complementary instrument in workplace harassment cases within the European institutions. It does not replace the Staff Regulations or the procedures under Articles 90 and 91, but it reinforces the principles of good administration. A generic, late, superficial or purely formal response may be contrary to the standards of good administration. For this reason, the Code may be used to strengthen arguments based on Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Internal rules of each European institution
In addition to the Staff Regulations and the Charter, each EU institution, body, office or agency may have specific internal rules on the prevention and handling of psychological and sexual harassment.
💡 For example, these rules may provide for a confidential support phase, a complaint phase, the involvement of a specialised committee, the appointment of investigators, the hearing of the parties, witness protection or the adoption of temporary measures while the facts are being examined.
Confidential counsellors usually have a support role. Advisory committees may intervene to examine harassment complaints and issue recommendations. However, their composition, independence, powers and effects vary depending on the institution. For this reason, before taking action, it is advisable to analyse the internal rules of each institution: the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council, the European External Action Service, decentralised agencies, the European Central Bank, the European Investment Bank or other EU bodies.
In a harassment situation, it may also be necessary to adopt interim or protective measures. In any event, internal rules do not replace the Staff Regulations or the Charter, but they specify how the institution must comply with its obligations. When an institution breaches its own internal rules, in addition to general EU law, this may strengthen an administrative complaint or a later action before the General Court.
Special cases and bodies with their own staff regime
Not all European bodies automatically apply the Staff Regulations or Articles 90 and 91 in the same way. The European Central Bank, the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund have their own staff regimes, conditions of employment, codes of conduct, internal procedures and specific complaint mechanisms. This does not mean that their staff have no protection against harassment. The principles of dignity, health, equality, good administration, impartial investigation, confidentiality and protection against retaliation remain relevant. However, before taking action, it is necessary to identify precisely the applicable regime, the competent authority, the internal procedure, the deadlines and the judicial route. In these bodies, using the wrong procedure may harm the defence of the worker concerned.
Workplace harassment according to the European institution concerned
Each workplace harassment case may vary depending on the European institution, body, agency or organisation concerned. Although the general principles are common, the same internal procedures, competent authorities or appeal routes do not always apply. Therefore, before submitting a complaint, request for assistance or administrative claim, it is important to analyse the competent European institution.
Workplace harassment in the European Commission
In the European Commission, the main framework is based on the Staff Regulations of Officials. The Commission’s internal rules on preventing and combating harassment must also be taken into account, as well as confidential counsellors, formal procedures and administrative investigations.
Workplace harassment in the European Parliament
In the European Parliament, specific situations may arise, especially when the alleged harassment involves hierarchical superiors, administrative services, Members of the European Parliament, accredited parliamentary assistants or contract staff. The analysis must take into account not only the Staff Regulations, but also the Parliament’s internal rules and codes of conduct. In these cases, it is usually important to determine who the competent authority is, which internal procedure must be followed and what protective measures may be adopted when there is a political, administrative or functional dependency relationship.
Workplace harassment in the Council and the European External Action Service
In the Council and the European External Action Service, harassment may arise in contexts of international mobility, delegations, diplomatic pressure, changes of posting or sensitive working structures. In these cases, in addition to Article 12a and the duty of assistance, it is necessary to carefully analyse the specific working environment, the hierarchical chain, the involvement of human resources, mediation mechanisms and the possibility of adopting protective measures without harming the career or professional posting of the person concerned.
Workplace harassment in EU agencies
Decentralised agencies of the European Union — such as Frontex, EUIPO, EASA, EMA, Europol, Eurojust and others — usually apply the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, but they also have their own internal rules and specific procedures. In agencies, problems often arise in contexts involving small teams, strong dependency, temporary contracts, probation periods, non-renewal of contracts or lack of independence. For this reason, it is important to identify the authority competent to conclude contracts, the authority competent to decide on requests for assistance and the deadlines applicable to any complaint.
European Central Bank, European Investment Bank and European Investment Fund
The European Central Bank, the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund require specific attention, because they do not always apply the Staff Regulations of Officials or Articles 90 and 91 in the same terms. These bodies have their own conditions of employment, staff rules, codes of conduct, internal policies and specific complaint mechanisms. In the case of the European Central Bank, the analysis must be carried out, in particular, in light of Article 41 of the ECB Conditions of Employment and Section 8.1 of the ECB Staff Rules, where applicable. These internal provisions may be relevant to examine the institution’s obligations.
Although these bodies have their own staff regime, the general principles of EU law remain relevant. Therefore, in harassment cases within the ECB, EIB or EIF, it is not enough to invoke the Staff Regulations of Officials. It is necessary to identify the specific internal rule, the competent authority, the applicable procedure, the appeal deadlines and the corresponding judicial route.
Deadlines in workplace harassment cases in the European institutions
In workplace harassment cases within the European institutions, deadlines are decisive. If the person concerned does not challenge a harmful decision in time, they may lose the possibility of contesting it. Therefore, in addition to documenting the facts, it is necessary to identify which act must be challenged, when it was notified and which legal route is the correct one.
| Action | Main deadline | Starting point | Practical comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Request under Article 90(1) | There is not always a single fixed deadline | From the moment the person needs the institution to adopt a decision regarding their situation | It may be used to request a formal decision on duties, assistance, protective measures or return to work |
| Institution’s response to an Article 90(1) request | 4 months | From the submission of the request | If there is no response, an implied rejection decision arises |
| Administrative complaint under Article 90(2) | 3 months | From notification of the harmful act or from the implied rejection decision | This is the key route to challenge decisions such as evaluations, refusal of assistance, closure of a complaint or non-renewal |
| Institution’s response to the Article 90(2) complaint | 4 months | From the submission of the complaint | If there is no response, the complaint is deemed to be implicitly rejected |
| Action before the General Court of the European Union | 3 months | From the express or implied decision rejecting the complaint | The judicial route normally requires a prior Article 90(2) complaint, except in specific cases involving interim measures |
| European Ombudsman | 2 years | From the date on which the person became aware of the facts | It does not replace the judicial route and does not suspend the deadlines under Articles 90 or 91 |
💡 Practical note: in workplace harassment matters, it is not necessary to wait until the situation becomes worse. If there is a specific decision that harms the official or agent, it must be assessed immediately whether it triggers a complaint deadline.
What can the victim of workplace harassment request?
The victim of workplace harassment in a European institution should not limit themselves to reporting the facts. Depending on the case, these requests may be made in a request for assistance, in an administrative complaint, in an internal procedure or, later, before the General Court of the European Union.
Recognition of the existence of harassment
The first request may be that the institution recognises that the reported facts constitute psychological harassment, sexual harassment or conduct contrary to professional dignity. This recognition may serve as a basis for adopting protective measures, correcting administrative decisions affected by the harassment and claiming compensation for the damage caused. In some cases, the institution may not expressly use the word “harassment”, but may recognise that inappropriate behaviour, breaches of the duty of assistance or failures in the protection of the official have occurred. This type of recognition may be relevant for a later claim.
Opening of an administrative investigation
Where there are sufficiently concrete indications of harassment, the victim may request the opening of an administrative investigation. This investigation may include the review of emails, interviews with witnesses, analysis of professional evaluations, examination of meetings, review of the chronology of events and assessment of the conduct of superiors, human resources or other services involved. If the institution decides not to open an investigation, it must give proper reasons for its decision and explain why it considers that the alleged facts do not justify further investigative measures.
Protective measures against the alleged harasser
The victim may request protective measures while the facts are being examined. These measures are especially important when the person continues to work under the authority, supervision or direct influence of the alleged harasser. These measures do not necessarily mean that the institution has already found that harassment exists. They may be adopted provisionally and preventively to protect the health, dignity and professional integrity of the person concerned while the case is being processed.
Professional reintegration
When the victim has been on sick leave, they may request safe professional reintegration. The return to work must be organised in a way that is compatible with the person’s health and with the applicable medical recommendations. Depending on the case, the victim may request a gradual return-to-work plan, temporary reassignment, partial teleworking, adaptation of duties, coordination with the medical service or any other measure that helps avoid immediate exposure to the same hostile environment that caused the sick leave. For more information, see our article on the invalidity allowance in the European Union.
Annulment of harmful decisions linked to harassment
In certain cases, harassment is not limited to personal behaviour, but is reflected in administrative decisions. The victim may then request the annulment of those decisions. This may concern, for example, a negative professional evaluation, an appraisal report, removal of duties, unjustified reassignment, transfer, disciplinary decision, refusal of promotion or a decision rejecting a request for assistance. It is necessary to explain the connection between the harassment and the challenged decision. For example, that the negative evaluation was adopted by the same person who was reported, that it appeared immediately after a request for assistance, that it contradicts previous positive evaluations or that it is based on incomplete, biased or previously undisclosed facts.
Compensation for moral and material damage
The victim may also request compensation for the damage suffered. This compensation may cover both moral damage and material damage, provided that there is a sufficient link between the institution’s conduct and the alleged harm. Moral damage may include psychological suffering, harm to professional dignity, damage to internal reputation, anxiety, stress, loss of confidence, unjustified public exposure or the feeling of institutional abandonment after a harassment complaint. Material damage may include specific financial losses, loss of professional opportunities, impact on career development, non-renewal of contract, blocked promotion, medical expenses, psychological or psychiatric costs and, in certain cases, legal costs linked to the defence of the rights of the official or agent.
❗️ To claim compensation, it is important to document the damage. Medical certificates, psychological reports, professional evaluations, internal communications, evidence of loss of opportunities, administrative decisions, justified expenses and any element showing the impact of the harassment or the institution’s failure to act may be relevant. In any event, compensation does not depend only on the existence of harassment. It may also arise from incorrect conduct by the institution.
Evidence needed in a workplace harassment case
In workplace harassment cases within the European institutions, evidence rarely depends on a single document. It is usually built through an accumulation of indications, such as emails, evaluations, changes of duties, witnesses, communications, medical reports and a chronology of the facts. The point is to prove an objective pattern: what happened, when it happened, who was involved, what impact it had and how the institution reacted.
| Type of evidence | Purpose | Legal value |
|---|---|---|
| Facts | To organise incidents by date, persons involved and consequences | Helps prove repetition, systematic conduct and the connection between the facts |
| Emails and internal messages | To prove instructions, tone, reproaches, exclusions or lack of response | Particularly useful documentary evidence because of their date and content |
| Meeting invitations and minutes | To prove exclusion from meetings, public humiliation or changes in participation | Helps prove professional isolation or degrading exposure |
| Professional evaluations or appraisal reports | To compare performance before and after the conflict | May show contradictions, lack of objectivity or retaliation |
| Job descriptions, objectives and organisational charts | To prove removal of duties, loss of role or change of reporting line | Helps show a real loss of responsibilities |
| Communications with HR, confidential counsellors or the Staff Committee | To prove that the institution was informed of the situation | Key to activating the duty of assistance and assessing the institution’s reaction |
| Medical certificates or psychological reports | To prove impact on health, anxiety, burnout or sick leave | They do not prove harassment by themselves, but they strengthen the evidence of damage and its timing |
| Witnesses | To confirm humiliation, isolation, shouting, changes in treatment or retaliation | May be decisive if they are consistent and specific |
| Comparison with other colleagues | To show unequal treatment, selective workload or unjustified exclusion | Useful in cases of discrimination, retaliation or degrading treatment |
| Decisions after a complaint | To prove retaliation after a request for assistance, internal complaint or contact with HR | The chronology may be essential to prove a causal link |
Ideally, the evidence should be prepared before submitting a request for assistance or an administrative complaint. A complaint without dates, documents or specific measures requested is unlikely to succeed. By contrast, a complaint supported by a chronology, documents and precise examples requires the institution to respond more seriously and with proper reasoning.
💡 It is also important not to mix unverifiable facts with documented facts. Credibility is important. It is better to present fewer facts that are well proven and well organised than a very long but confusing complaint.
Finally, care must be taken with confidentiality and data protection. The person concerned should preserve the available evidence, while avoiding unnecessary disclosure of internal documents or personal data of third parties. In some cases, it may be useful to request access to certain documents, ask for written confirmation of verbal instructions or record relevant situations by email.
Gender-based harassment and the institution’s duty of protection
Workplace harassment in a European institution may have a gender dimension when the facts are linked to sex, pregnancy, maternity, family situation, gender-based violence, dependency, vulnerability or discriminatory stereotypes. In such cases, it may also constitute a possible breach of equality, non-discrimination, dignity and the physical or psychological integrity of the person concerned.
This approach is reinforced by the Beijing Declaration, which identifies violence against women as a manifestation of structural inequality and recognises that it may also occur in the workplace, including harassment and intimidation at work. The Istanbul Convention is also relevant, especially because of its duty of diligence to prevent, investigate, protect and repair situations of violence against women. The European Union’s accession to the Convention and Directive (EU) 2024/1385 strengthen this European protection framework.
In the most serious cases, in addition to requesting protective measures, an investigation or the annulment of harmful decisions, a claim for compensation may also be considered. Article 340 TFEU allows the European Union to be held non-contractually liable where there is unlawful conduct attributable to the institution — including an omission — real damage and a direct causal link. EU case-law on the liability of the Union also requires a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals.
European Ombudsman in harassment cases
The European Ombudsman may intervene in certain workplace harassment cases within the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union, especially where the complaint reveals possible maladministration. Ombudsman’s role is not to replace the institution or the General Court of the European Union. The European Ombudsman cannot annul an administrative decision, order compensation or judicially declare that harassment has occurred. Its role is to examine whether the institution acted correctly from an administrative point of view: whether it handled the complaint diligently, respected impartiality, gave reasons for its decision, replied within a reasonable time and correctly applied EU rules on harassment and its own internal rules.
In harassment cases, it may be useful to contact the European Ombudsman when the institution does not reply, unjustifiably delays the procedure, refuses to open an investigation without sufficient reasoning, fails to properly inform the person concerned, incorrectly applies the internal procedure or does not adopt protective measures against retaliation. However, before submitting a complaint to the European Ombudsman, the official or agent must have used the available internal remedies.
💡 In practice, this usually means having submitted a request for assistance, an administrative complaint under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations or the equivalent internal procedure applicable within the institution concerned. It is important to know that contacting the European Ombudsman does not suspend the deadlines for submitting an administrative complaint or bringing an action before the General Court. The complaint to the Ombudsman must also be submitted within two years from the date on which the harassment situation occurred or became known.
The European Ombudsman may issue recommendations, critical remarks or proposals for a solution. Although its decisions do not have the effect of a binding judgment, they may have an important impact, especially where they reveal deficiencies in the institution’s handling of a harassment complaint. For this reason, the European Ombudsman may be a useful route in workplace harassment cases within the European institutions, but it must not be confused with the judicial route. Its intervention is especially relevant to report maladministration, lack of diligence, absence of response, deficient investigation or failure to comply with internal protection rules.
Case-law on workplace harassment in the European civil service
EU case-law on workplace harassment in the European civil service has clarified several important points. First, psychological harassment must be assessed by taking into account all the facts, and not only isolated incidents. Second, it is not necessary to prove a specific malicious intention on the part of the alleged harasser. What matters is that the conduct, which must be voluntary and assessed objectively, may affect the dignity, personality or physical or psychological integrity of the person concerned. Third, when an official or agent submits a request for assistance for harassment, the institution must handle it seriously, impartially, with sufficient reasoning and with respect for the right to be heard.
HF v European Parliament: request for assistance and right to be heard
The judgment in HF v European Parliament, C-570/18 P, is one of the most important decisions on workplace harassment in the European institutions. This case concerned a contract agent who had submitted a request for assistance for psychological harassment under Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations. European Parliament rejected the request, and the issue was whether the complainant had been able to effectively exercise her right to be heard. The Court of Justice held that a decision rejecting a request for assistance for harassment adversely affects the complainant. Therefore, before adopting that decision, the institution must allow the person concerned to effectively submit their observations.
What the judgment establishes is that the institution cannot handle a harassment complaint as a simple opaque internal procedure. If it intends to reject the request, it must give the person concerned an opportunity to respond to the elements in the file. This does not necessarily mean full and unlimited access to all documents, especially where confidential data of witnesses or third parties is involved. However, it does require at least sufficient information, possibly anonymised, allowing the complainant to defend their position. This case-law directly reinforces Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, particularly the right to good administration and the right to be heard.
Case-law on the definition of Article 12a
EU case-law has progressively clarified the concept of psychological harassment under Article 12a of the Staff Regulations. This provision requires improper conduct taking place over a period of time, repeatedly or systematically, through conduct, words, written messages, gestures or other intentional acts that may affect a person. However, the word “intentional” does not mean that the victim must prove a specific intention to cause harm. What matters is that the acts are voluntary, not accidental. Harassment may exist even if the alleged harasser did not expressly intend to hurt the victim, provided that the conduct, objectively assessed, had that effect.
💡 The judgment in Tzirani v Commission is important because it confirms that the administration cannot apply an excessively restrictive interpretation of Article 12a. The absence of malicious intent does not automatically exclude the existence of psychological harassment if the facts, assessed objectively, may affect the dignity or integrity of the person concerned.
The case-law also requires an overall assessment. Each incident should not be artificially isolated in order to conclude that none of them, taken separately, reaches the threshold of harassment. In many cases, harassment is built precisely through an accumulation of acts. At the same time, the case-law distinguishes harassment from ordinary professional conflicts. The assessment must be made from the perspective of an impartial observer with normal sensitivity placed in the same context.
💡 This idea appears in SQ v European Investment Bank, where the General Court recalled that psychological harassment may result from a series of different acts which, considered separately, might not be sufficient, but which, viewed together and in context, may reveal abusive conduct. In the same line, KU v EEAS insists that events must be examined globally and not in a fragmented way.
Case-law on requests for assistance and administrative investigations
In workplace harassment matters, the case-law confirms that, when an official or agent provides sufficiently concrete indications of harassment, the institution must examine the facts and adopt appropriate measures. This may include an administrative investigation, witness interviews, review of documents, involvement of an advisory committee, interim protective measures or any other steps necessary to clarify the facts. The institution has a certain margin of discretion in deciding how to organise the investigation, but it cannot limit itself to a superficial or late response.
In HF v European Parliament, the Court of Justice recalled that the rejection of a request for assistance for harassment adversely affects the complainant and that, before adopting a negative decision, the institution must respect their right to be heard. The administration cannot reject the request without allowing the person concerned to comment on the elements on which the decision is based.
The administration also cannot reject a request for assistance on the basis of an excessively restrictive interpretation of the concept of harassment. In addition, the procedure must comply with the principle of good administration. This implies impartiality, sufficient reasoning and proper management of confidentiality. The institution must also avoid leaving the victim unprotected while the procedure is pending. In short, EU case-law requires the institutions of the Union to handle workplace harassment complaints rigorously. It is not enough to simply state that there is insufficient evidence.
The judgment in OZ v European Investment Bank concerned a complaint of sexual harassment. In that case, the Court of Justice reinforced the importance of the right to be heard in internal investigations and the need for the complainant to be able to know, in a manner compatible with confidentiality, the elements on which the rejection of their complaint is based.
Examples of workplace harassment situations in European institutions
Our firm advises EU officials and agents in complex situations involving harassment, retaliation, requests for assistance, administrative complaints and return to work after sick leave. Below are some examples of situations we have handled with clients, presented anonymously.
Repeated public criticism and professional humiliation
One first example concerned an official who, after several years of positive evaluations, began to receive constant public criticism from their hierarchical superior. Their interventions were interrupted during meetings, their proposals were ridiculed in front of the team, and minor mistakes were presented as proof of incompetence. Because this conduct was repeated over time and affected the person’s professional reputation, it was classified as psychological harassment. The repetition, the context and the degrading effect on the professional dignity of the person concerned were taken into account.
💡 How we approached it: The first step was to reconstruct a chronology of the incidents. Witnesses were also identified, and we reviewed whether there had been an unjustified change compared with previous evaluations. On that basis, a formal communication was prepared for the institution, framing the facts as possible psychological harassment and a breach of the duty of assistance.
We requested that the degrading public conduct cease, that protective measures be adopted and that any future evaluation be carried out with guarantees of objectivity. The situation was resolved through a formal intervention by the institution and the adoption of measures to avoid further unjustified public exposure.
Professional isolation and exclusion from the team
In another case, an agent progressively stopped being invited to relevant meetings. They lost access to information needed to perform their work and stopped receiving clear instructions. Their emails were not answered and, although they formally kept their post, in practice they had been excluded from the team. In this case, the strategy was to show that these were not isolated incidents, but a pattern of professional exclusion. To do so, we compared meetings that the person previously attended with meetings from which they were later excluded, collected unanswered emails and documented the loss of access to essential information.
💡 How we approached it: A request was addressed to the institution asking it to clarify the person’s duties, reporting line, objectives and participation in the team. We also requested that any form of unjustified professional isolation be brought to an end. The situation was resolved through the redefinition of the person’s tasks, the appointment of a hierarchical contact person and the person’s reintegration into meetings.
Removal of duties and loss of role
We have also analysed situations in which the official or agent keeps their formal title but progressively loses their responsibilities. Files are withdrawn, they are excluded from important projects, or they are assigned tasks far below their grade, experience or professional profile. In such cases, we reviewed job descriptions, annual objectives, organisational charts, previous evaluations, internal emails and the actual distribution of tasks.
The action was initially framed as a formal request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, asking the institution to adopt a decision on the duties, responsibilities and reporting line of the person concerned. The situation was redirected through reassignment, the recovery of certain responsibilities and the setting of professional objectives. If the institution had rejected the request or maintained the situation without sufficient reasoning, the express or implied decision could have been challenged through an Article 90(2) complaint.
Abusive workload and contradictory instructions
Another case we handled concerned an agent who received urgent and mutually incompatible tasks, with impossible deadlines and without sufficient resources. At the same time, they were blamed for delays caused by contradictory instructions or decisions taken by other services. Our intervention focused on showing that the workload was selective, repeated and functionally impossible to comply with. A table was prepared setting out the tasks assigned, deadlines, instructions received, contradictions, available resources and later reproaches. Article 31 of the Charter, concerning working conditions, was invoked, as well as Article 41, due to the need for reasoned instructions. Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations were also invoked. The situation was resolved through the setting of priorities, redistribution of tasks and the requirement for clear instructions.
Negative evaluations used as a pressure tool
In another case, a person with previous positive evaluations suddenly received a negative evaluation, without prior warnings, without feedback and in a context of conflict. Our intervention consisted of comparing the challenged evaluation with previous evaluations, the objectives set, the comments received and the facts relied on by the administration. We analysed whether the evaluation was based on objective criteria or whether it appeared to be connected to pressure, a previous complaint or professional isolation.
In this case, the main mechanism was to challenge the evaluation through the applicable internal channels. Subsequently, an administrative complaint was submitted under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. Article 41 of the Charter was invoked because of the lack of reasoning and breach of the right to be heard. Article 12a of the Staff Regulations was also invoked, as the evaluation was considered part of a broader pattern of harassment or retaliation. As no satisfactory response was obtained at the administrative stage, the matter was brought before the General Court of the European Union. The discussion focused on the legality of the evaluation, the sufficiency of the reasoning, respect for procedural safeguards and the possible connection between the negative evaluation and the harassment context reported.
Retaliation after a complaint, request for assistance or contact with human resources
Retaliation cases are especially sensitive. A person informs human resources, contacts the Staff Committee, submits a request for assistance or cooperates as a witness in an investigation. Shortly afterwards, their duties are removed, their evaluation deteriorates, their career is blocked or their continuity is questioned. The close timing between the complaint and the unfavourable decisions was treated as a relevant indication.
Where the person had reported irregularities, Articles 22a, 22b and 22c of the Staff Regulations on whistleblower protection were also analysed. The action consisted of requesting protective measures against retaliation, preservation of duties and review of the decisions adopted. The situation was redirected through the adoption of protective measures and the review of certain internal decisions.
Return to work after sick leave
Another particularly sensitive situation is the return to work after sick leave caused by anxiety, burnout or psychological deterioration linked to the professional environment. In some cases, the institution intends to reintegrate the person into the same team, under the same reporting line. Our intervention consisted of requesting a safe return-to-work plan, with defined duties, reporting line, protective measures and coordination with the medical service. We requested that the reintegration should not expose the person again to the environment that had caused the sick leave.
Legally, Article 24 of the Staff Regulations was invoked, together with Article 31 of the Charter on health, safety and dignity at work, and Article 41 of the Charter concerning the institution’s obligation to act diligently and with proper reasoning. The situation was resolved through a gradual reintegration. In this type of case, the priority is to prevent the return to work from becoming a continuation of the harassment.
Legal advice on workplace harassment in a European institution and why you should not wait
If you work in an institution, agency or body of the European Union and believe that you are suffering workplace harassment, retaliation, professional isolation, an unjustified evaluation or difficulties returning to work after sick leave, it is important to act within the applicable deadlines.
Our firm can help you analyse your situation, reconstruct the chronology of events, assess the available evidence, prepare a request for assistance, submit an administrative complaint under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations or, if necessary, assess the viability of an action before the General Court of the European Union. Each case requires an individual strategy. Therefore, before submitting an internal complaint or responding to a decision of the institution, it is advisable to obtain specialised legal advice.
Contact us at info@arthurmarin.com or by phone at +32 465 34 53 45 to obtain a confidential consultation.
❗️ Acting in time can make the difference between a situation that becomes worse and a strategy to protect your health, dignity and professional career within the institution.
