Corte di giustizia UE/2014

62013FO0068 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 9 September 2014 ( *1 ) ‛Death of the applicant — Reopening of the oral procedure’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA] F‑68/13, ACTION brought pursuant to Article 36.2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], annexed to the EU Treaty and to the FEU Treaty, CY, member of the staff of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], residing in Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers, applicant, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (ECB), represented by E. Carlini and F. Feyerbacher, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, defendant, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], E. Perillo and J. Svenningsen (Rapporteur), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: W. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], makes the following: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By application received at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 9 July 2013, CY sought, in essence, first, the annulment of the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (ECB) of 18 December 2012 closing the internal administrative inquiry opened following her complaint of psychological harassment and the annulment of that inquiry and of the inquiry report drawn up once it had finished and, secondly, the grant of EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by her, essentially in connection with the conduct of her line manager. 2 The parties were heard in their oral submissions and in their answers to questions put by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] at the hearing on 21 May 2014. The oral procedure was closed on that date. 3 The parties were then informed, on 9 July 2014, that the judgment bringing the proceedings to an end would be delivered on 17 September 2014. 4 By letter of 13 August 2014, counsel for the defendant informed the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the death of the applicant, which occurred on 11 July 2014. By email of 3 September 2014, counsel for the applicant confirmed that information to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 5 Accordingly, the oral procedure must be reopened in order that the applicant’s legal successors be given an opportunity to state whether they wish to resume the proceedings (see, to that effect, orders in Barbin v Parliament , T‑228/11 P, EU:T:2012:701 , and Boyes v Commission , T‑81/98, EU:T:1999:305 , paragraphs 5 to 7). 6 Therefore, under Article 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure, it is necessary to order the reopening of the oral procedure in the present case. On those grounds, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1. The oral procedure shall be reopened. 2. The costs are reserved. Luxembourg, 9 September 2014. W. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] S. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ( *1 ) Language of the case: English