XH v Commission (Harcèlement pendant un conge de maladie) (Civil service - European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Allegations of psychological harassment during periods of sick leave - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-75/24P (15 January 2026)

XH v Commission (Harcèlement pendant un conge de maladie) (Civil service - European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Allegations of psychological harassment during periods of sick leave - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-75/24P (15 January 2026)

The decision opening the invalidity procedure did not bring about a distinct or definitive change in the appellant's legal position and was therefore a preparatory act not open to challenge under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. The General Court did not err in law or distort the evidence in its assessment of the appellant's claims regarding harassment, privacy, or procedural rights. The appeal was rejected as in part inadmissible, in part unfounded, and in part ineffective.

Citation
[2026] EUECJ C-75/24P
Parties
Appellant: XH; Respondent: European Commission
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
15 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal From General Court Judgment (eu) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, Judicial Review of Preparatory Acts, Psychological Harassment, Right to Private Life and Data Protection, Compensation for Non Material Damage
European Union Law Employment Law Administrative Law Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union Judicial Review of Preparatory Acts Psychological Harassment Right to Private Life and Data Protection Compensation for Non Material Damage

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XH

Appellant

European Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From General Court Judgment (eu) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision opening the invalidity procedure is a challengeable act under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the General Court erred in dismissing claims of psychological harassment and breach of privacy
  3. 3 Whether the General Court failed to consider or distorted evidence regarding the appellant's sick leave and treatment by superiors

Ratio Decidendi

The decision opening the invalidity procedure did not bring about a distinct or definitive change in the appellant's legal position and was therefore a preparatory act not open to challenge under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. The General Court did not err in law or distort the evidence in its assessment of the appellant's claims regarding harassment, privacy, or procedural rights. The appeal was rejected as in part inadmissible, in part unfounded, and in part ineffective.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.