CJEU Case C-75/24 P / Judment

95. By the fourth part of the first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court distorted the evidence, since it merely accepted the Commission’s miscalculation of the number of days of sick leave taken by the appellant, without examining her actual presence at work. In the fifth part of the first ground of appeal, the appellant claims, in essence, that the General Court should have found that the Commission had infringed her right to respect for her private life and had failed to comply with the obligation to protect her personal data, guaranteed by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter.

...

100. By the second part of the second ground of appeal, the appellant asserts that the General Court failed to refer to the lack of reasons for the decision rejecting the request for assistance, which is contrary to the requirements of transparency and accountability laid down in Articles 59 and 90 of the Staff Regulations, read in conjunction with Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter.

101. In the third part of the second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that, in paragraphs 97 and 98 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in its interpretation and application of Article 84(1) of its Rules of Procedure. The General Court rejected the new evidence submitted by the appellant after the reply had been lodged, even though that evidence had not been available at the time the application at first instance or the reply had been lodged. According to the appellant, the General Court’s rejection of that evidence was contrary to Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’).

...

106. In the sixth part of the second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed Article 11a of the Staff Regulations, concerning conflict of interest, and Article 59 of the Staff Regulations, relating to sick leave. Failure adequately to address the inappropriate behaviour of the institution concerned may also contravene the right to dignity, the right to respect for private life and the right to data protection, which are enshrined, respectively, in Articles 1, 7 and 8 of the Charter.

...

118. By the eleventh part of the second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that, in paragraph 147 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in holding that the emails between, on the one hand, the Head of Unit C and the secretary of Unit A and, on the other hand, the appellant did not give rise to any personal information being sent such as to infringe her right to respect for her private life. In so doing, the General Court incorrectly assessed the protection of privacy provided for in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter and the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In that regard, it is apparent from the judgment of the ECtHR of 22 February 2018, Libert v. France (CE:ECHR:2018:0222JUD000058813, §§ 24 and 25), that the context of the processing of personal data, be it professional or otherwise, does not solely determine its impact on the private life of the data subject. It is the nature of the data themselves and the way in which they relate to that private life which are of key importance.

119. The appellant further submits that the General Court’s statement in paragraph 143 of the judgment under appeal that all professional activities are automatically excluded from the protection of private life is contrary to Article 7 of the Charter and Article 8 ECHR.

...

122. The appellant claims that the General Court’s conclusion in paragraph 149 of the judgment under appeal, according to which the appellant’s ‘right to health’ was not infringed, is vitiated by an error of law, since it is in breach of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. While primarily professional in nature, the emails and interactions at issue clearly intrude into the appellant’s personal sphere, as regards, in particular, her sick leave and her ‘right to health’. In paragraphs 5 to 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15 to 18 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court blurred the line between professional and personal matters. The appellant claims that the fact that her superiors sought her input during her sick leave, by requesting that she contribute to ongoing cases and to decisions on office moves, as referred to by the General Court in paragraphs 6, 7, 9, 11, 16 and 17 of the judgment under appeal, disrupted the normal course of that leave and implied interference with her privacy and ‘health-related needs’.

...

159. By the sixth part of the second ground of appeal, the appellant submits, in essence, first, that, by failing adequately to address the Commission’s conduct, the General Court infringed Articles 11a and 59 of the Staff Regulations, as well as the right to dignity, the right to respect for private life and the right to the protection of personal data, enshrined, respectively, in Articles 1, 7 and 8 of the Charter. Second, the appellant claims that, in paragraphs 107 and 108 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court infringed Articles 11 and 21 of the Staff Regulations by finding that there was insufficient evidence in support of the existence of psychological harassment, even though the Head of Unit C had behaved inappropriately.

...

183. By the eleventh part of the second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in its assessment of the protection of privacy, enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter and Article 8 ECHR, and of the protection of personal data, enshrined in Article 8 of the Charter, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 118 to 122 above.

...

185. It must be noted that, in paragraph 145 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court recalled that, according to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, 22 February 2018, Libert v. France, CE:ECHR:2018:0222JUD000058813, §§ 24 and 25), for the conclusion to be reached that emails sent from the workplace are covered by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, they must contain non-professional data, namely data relating to the private life of the person in question.

...

190. As regards the appellant’s argument that the General Court’s ruling, in paragraph 149 of the judgment under appeal, that her ‘right to health’ was not infringed, was in breach of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, it is sufficient to recall that, in that paragraph, the General Court held that, in the light of the findings made in paragraphs 99 to 115 of that judgment, the appointing authority had not made an error of assessment in finding that the appellant had not provided prima facie evidence of harassment on account of obligations to perform work or due to a request to move office during her sick leave.