Civil Law and Workplace Bullying Civil Compensation Claims in Europe

1. Introduction

Workplace bullying—often described in European legal systems as mobbing, psychological harassment, workplace harassment, moral harassment or psychosocial harassment—can give rise to civil compensation claims against employers, managers, public institutions and, in some circumstances, individual colleagues.

The conduct may include:

repeated humiliation;

insults;

intimidation;

deliberate isolation;

exclusion from meetings;

unjustified removal of responsibilities;

persistent criticism;

excessive or impossible workloads;

deliberate withholding of work;

manipulation of performance evaluations;

threats;

discriminatory treatment;

spreading damaging rumours;

professional degradation;

retaliation after complaints; and

other conduct seriously affecting the employee's dignity, health or working conditions.

European law does not contain one completely uniform definition of "workplace bullying." Instead, protection comes from a combination of:

national employment law;

national civil/tort law;

occupational-health and safety law;

equality and anti-discrimination legislation;

contractual duties;

EU employment law;

the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; and

the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights has expressly recognised that States have a positive obligation under Article 8 ECHR to maintain and apply an adequate legal framework protecting individuals against harassment at work. (ECHR)

A particularly important recent development is the CJEU's continuing jurisprudence concerning psychological harassment in the EU civil service, including its 2026 judgment in XH v European Commission.

2. Meaning of Workplace Bullying

Workplace bullying generally involves conduct that, viewed individually or cumulatively, has the purpose or effect of:

humiliating, intimidating, degrading, isolating, discrediting or seriously impairing the working conditions of another person.

The legal concept is broader than simply being rude.

For example:

Ordinary workplace disagreement

A manager says:

"This report contains serious errors and must be corrected."

This will not normally constitute bullying.

Potential bullying

A manager repeatedly:

publicly humiliates an employee;

gives impossible deadlines;

deliberately withholds information;

excludes the employee from necessary meetings;

describes the employee as incompetent to colleagues;

removes meaningful work;

gives unjustified negative evaluations.

The cumulative conduct may constitute psychological harassment.

3. Civil Compensation Model

A workplace bullying claim can broadly be represented as:

Bullying conduct

↓

Breach of employment/civil-law duty

↓

Damage

↓

Causal connection

↓

Compensation

Possible heads of damage include:

lost salary;

loss of promotion;

medical expenses;

psychological treatment;

reduced earning capacity;

reputational damage;

pain and suffering;

loss of dignity;

non-material damage;

career damage;

relocation expenses;

legal expenses where recoverable.

4. Workplace Bullying Versus Harassment

The terminology is important.

Bullying

Generally refers to repeated hostile or abusive conduct directed at an employee.

Psychological harassment

A broader legal concept often involving conduct that:

discredits a person;

impairs working conditions;

humiliates;

intimidates; or

undermines professional dignity.

Discriminatory harassment

Where the hostile conduct is connected with:

sex;

race;

ethnic origin;

religion;

disability;

age;

sexual orientation;

or another protected characteristic.

This may trigger EU equality legislation and potentially different compensation rules.

5. European Legal Framework

5.1 Article 8 ECHR

Article 8 protects private life.

The ECtHR has interpreted "private life" broadly enough to encompass:

personal integrity;

psychological integrity;

professional relationships;

reputation;

dignity.

Consequently, severe workplace harassment can engage Article 8.

The ECtHR's work-related rights materials expressly identify workplace bullying and harassment as falling within the State's Article 8 positive obligations. (ECHR)

6. EU Civil-Service Framework

For EU officials and other EU staff, Article 12a of the Staff Regulations expressly addresses psychological harassment.

The CJEU describes psychological harassment as conduct:

intended to discredit the person concerned or impair his working conditions, or having that effect.

The jurisprudence also examines repetition and the circumstances surrounding the alleged conduct. (EUR-Lex)

EU officials may also rely upon:

Article 24 — duty to provide assistance;

Article 41 of the Charter — good administration;

Article 47 — effective judicial protection;

Article 340 TFEU — EU non-contractual liability.

7. Case Law 1 — Špadijer v Montenegro, Application No. 31549/18, 9 November 2021

This is one of the most important European cases specifically concerning workplace bullying.

Facts

The applicant was a prison guard.

She reported misconduct involving colleagues and inappropriate behaviour involving prisoners.

Following her report, she experienced bullying and harassment.

The conduct included serious insults and humiliating treatment.

She also complained that incidents outside work were connected with the hostility generated by her reporting.

She initiated domestic civil proceedings against her employer.

The domestic courts rejected her claim, among other reasons because they considered that the conduct did not satisfy the required frequency for bullying. (ECHR)

ECtHR judgment

The ECtHR found a violation of Article 8.

The Court criticised the manner in which the domestic legal mechanisms had been applied.

The authorities had failed adequately to protect the applicant from workplace bullying, particularly in the context of her whistleblowing.

(ECHR)

Importance

Špadijer establishes an extremely important principle:

Domestic courts must examine workplace bullying in its complete factual context rather than mechanically examining individual incidents in isolation.

This is especially important in civil compensation cases.

A single insult may not constitute bullying.

But:

insult + exclusion + threats + humiliation + retaliation + professional isolation

may constitute a legally actionable pattern.

8. Case Law 2 — C. v Romania, Application No. 47358/20, 30 August 2022

This case concerned alleged sexual harassment in the workplace.

The applicant worked as a cleaner at a railway station.

She complained that her manager repeatedly attempted to sexually assault or harass her.

Domestic authorities failed adequately to investigate the allegations.

The ECtHR found a violation of Article 8 because the investigation had serious shortcomings. (HUDOC-EXEC)

Importance for civil compensation

Although this was not simply a private damages action against the employer, it demonstrates an important principle:

The State must provide an effective legal framework and investigation mechanism for serious workplace harassment.

A failure to investigate can itself engage the State's Article 8 responsibility.

It also shows that courts must avoid stereotypical assumptions about how a harassment victim should behave.

9. Case Law 3 — N.Ö. v Türkiye, Application No. 24733/15, 14 January 2025

This recent ECtHR judgment concerned allegations that a woman had been sexually assaulted at her workplace by her supervisor.

The Court found that the domestic authorities had failed to respond adequately to the allegations and had not subjected the evidence to the careful, context-sensitive scrutiny required under Article 8. (BAILII)

The Court criticised reliance on the applicant's delay in reporting and the failure to assess credibility in its proper context.

Significance

The case demonstrates that workplace harassment litigation cannot be determined through simplistic assumptions such as:

"She did not complain immediately, therefore the allegation is unreliable."

Courts must consider:

power imbalance;

fear of losing employment;

workplace dependency;

psychological consequences;

the surrounding evidence;

reporting circumstances.

This is particularly relevant to civil claims for non-material damage.

10. Case Law 4 — EM v European Parliament, C-299/21 P, 2 June 2022

This is an important CJEU case concerning psychological harassment and compensation.

Facts

EM was temporary staff working for a political group within the European Parliament.

He alleged psychological harassment and complained, among other things, that he was effectively deprived of meaningful tasks.

The dispute included claims for compensation.

CJEU ruling

The Court explained the concept of psychological harassment under Article 12a of the Staff Regulations.

It held that conduct can constitute psychological harassment where it is intended to discredit the person concerned or impair working conditions or has that effect. (EUR-Lex)

The Court also treated the requirements for institutional non-contractual liability as cumulative:

unlawful conduct;

damage; and

causal connection.

Most importantly, the CJEU ultimately ordered the European Parliament to pay €7,500 in compensation to EM for the loss or harm associated with being prevented from carrying out tasks during the relevant period. (EUR-Lex)

Importance

This is an excellent authority for the proposition that:

Depriving an employee of meaningful work can itself contribute to compensable psychological harassment and professional harm.

Workplace bullying therefore does not necessarily require constant insults or shouting.

Sometimes:

deliberately giving an employee nothing meaningful to do

can itself constitute unlawful harassment.

11. Case Law 5 — XH v European Commission, C-75/24 P, 15 January 2026

This is an important recent CJEU judgment.

The case concerned allegations of psychological harassment involving an EU official and proceedings concerning:

a request for assistance;

allegations of harassment;

sick leave;

an invalidity procedure;

compensation claims.

The Court dealt with issues concerning the admissibility of challenges, the reasoning of the General Court and alleged distortion of facts and evidence. (EUR-Lex)

Importance

The case demonstrates that psychological-harassment litigation within the EU civil service can involve several separate legal questions:

whether the alleged conduct constitutes harassment;

whether the institution properly investigated the complaint;

whether an administrative decision can be challenged;

whether damage occurred;

whether there is a causal connection;

whether compensation is legally available.

It therefore illustrates the complexity of compensation claims even where harassment is alleged.

12. Case Law 6 — PV v European Commission, C-640/20 P, 23 March 2023

PV v Commission is another major CJEU authority on psychological harassment.

The case involved allegations concerning:

psychological harassment;

medical assessments;

disciplinary procedures;

remuneration;

removal from post;

alleged material damage;

alleged non-material damage.

The applicant sought substantial compensation for material and non-material harm. (EUR-Lex)

The litigation demonstrates that an alleged harassment victim may connect bullying with subsequent administrative or disciplinary decisions, but each alleged unlawful measure must be legally and causally connected to the claimed damage.

Importance

The case reinforces an important proposition:

A claimant cannot simply aggregate every adverse workplace event into one damages claim; each component must be legally connected to actionable conduct and compensable harm.

13. Case Law 7 — Michail v European Commission, F-100/09, 13 September 2011

In Michail v Commission, the applicant alleged psychological harassment and sought €30,000 for non-pecuniary damage.

The Civil Service Tribunal examined the legal concept of psychological harassment under the Staff Regulations.

The case ultimately failed on its facts. (Court of Justice of the European Union)

Importance

The case is useful because it illustrates the other side of harassment litigation.

An employee's subjective feeling of being bullied is not necessarily sufficient.

Courts examine whether the objective legal requirements of psychological harassment have actually been satisfied.

14. Case Law 8 — De Nicola v European Investment Bank, F-55/08

De Nicola v European Investment Bank concerned allegations of workplace intimidation and "mobbing."

The claimant sought, among other remedies:

recognition that he had suffered harassment;

cessation of the conduct;

compensation for damage.

The case demonstrates that psychological harassment can arise within the institutional employment environment and can be linked to claims for damages.

(curia)

The case is particularly useful for understanding that workplace bullying litigation can involve both:

preventive remedies

and

compensatory remedies.

15. Case Law 9 — Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions, T-904/16

The General Court dealt with psychological harassment involving EU institutional staff.

The case involved:

psychological harassment;

an amicable settlement;

implementation of the settlement;

indemnification;

alleged misuse of powers.

(Publications Office of the EU)

Importance

This demonstrates another feature of European harassment disputes:

claims do not necessarily end with a full judicial trial.

They may result in:

settlement;

compensation;

institutional corrective measures;

reassignment;

confidentiality arrangements.

16. Summary of the Principal Cases

17. The Objective Nature of Workplace Bullying

A major legal issue is whether the victim must prove that the perpetrator intended to cause harm.

European institutional case law is particularly useful here.

The CJEU has explained that psychological harassment can concern conduct:

intended to discredit the person or impair working conditions or having that effect. (EUR-Lex)

This means intention is not necessarily the only route to liability.

For example:

A manager repeatedly humiliates an employee while claiming that the behaviour is merely "performance management."

The court may consider the objective effect and context rather than accepting the manager's label.

18. Repetition and Cumulative Conduct

Bullying commonly consists of a pattern rather than a single event.

Examples:

Monday — public criticism;

Wednesday — exclusion from meeting;

Friday — insulting email;

following week — removal of responsibilities;

next month — negative performance assessment.

Individually, each event might appear ambiguous.

Collectively, they may reveal a deliberate pattern.

This is why the ECtHR's approach in Špadijer is so important: domestic authorities must assess the allegations in their overall context rather than applying an excessively mechanical approach to frequency. (ECHR)

19. Workplace Bullying Through Isolation

Social and professional isolation can constitute bullying.

Examples:

excluding the employee from team communications;

withholding information;

preventing attendance at meetings;

moving the employee to an isolated workplace;

removing colleagues;

preventing interaction with clients;

refusing access to ordinary workplace facilities.

Isolation becomes particularly significant where it affects:

performance;

promotion;

reputation;

professional development.

20. Workplace Bullying Through Work Deprivation

An employer can potentially bully an employee by giving them:

no meaningful work.

This is particularly significant because it may appear superficially positive:

"The employee is not overworked."

But deliberate professional exclusion may cause:

loss of skills;

reputational harm;

loss of promotion opportunities;

humiliation;

professional stagnation.

EM v Parliament is particularly useful here because the CJEU ultimately awarded €7,500 for harm associated with preventing the employee from carrying out tasks. (EUR-Lex)

21. Excessive Workload as Bullying

The opposite can also occur.

An employer may deliberately assign:

impossible deadlines;

excessive workloads;

contradictory instructions;

constant urgent tasks;

work outside contractual responsibilities.

The court must distinguish between:

Legitimate demanding work

and

Deliberately oppressive workload

Evidence concerning how similarly situated employees were treated can be highly important.

22. Bullying Through Performance Evaluations

Performance reviews are frequently central to workplace bullying claims.

A manager may repeatedly give negative evaluations despite:

satisfactory objective performance;

positive client feedback;

previous successful reviews.

The employee may argue:

The evaluations were fabricated as part of a campaign to force resignation.

The employer may respond:

The evaluations reflected genuine performance concerns.

The court will examine:

contemporaneous records;

objective performance metrics;

treatment of comparable employees;

timing;

correspondence;

witnesses.

23. Retaliatory Bullying

Bullying may follow:

whistleblowing;

discrimination complaints;

trade-union activity;

safety complaints;

sexual-harassment complaints;

requests for reasonable accommodation;

litigation against the employer.

This can create overlapping causes of action.

For example:

Employee reports unsafe working conditions → manager begins humiliation and isolation.

The employee may have:

occupational-safety claim;

retaliation claim;

bullying claim;

breach-of-contract claim;

civil damages claim.

24. Workplace Bullying and Discrimination

Where bullying is connected to a protected characteristic, EU equality law becomes particularly important.

Examples:

Female employee repeatedly humiliated because she is a woman.

or:

Disabled employee deliberately excluded from meetings because management considers accommodation inconvenient.

This may constitute:

harassment;

discrimination;

victimisation;

breach of equal-treatment obligations.

The legal consequences can be stronger than for ordinary workplace conflict.

25. Employer's Duty of Care

A central private-law concept is the employer's duty to protect employees.

Depending on national law, this may arise from:

employment contract;

statutory occupational-health duties;

general tort/delict;

good-faith obligations;

dignity-at-work legislation.

The employer may be liable not only for directly bullying the employee but also for failing to respond adequately when bullying is reported.

26. Vicarious Liability

Suppose:

Manager A bullies Employee B.

The employer may potentially be responsible depending on national law and the relationship between the manager's conduct and employment.

Questions include:

Was the manager acting in the course of employment?

Did the employer know?

Should the employer have known?

Did the employer investigate?

Did HR take corrective action?

Was the bullying facilitated by workplace structures?

27. Failure to Investigate

A particularly serious problem arises where the employee complains and the employer does nothing.

For example:

Employee reports repeated harassment.

HR responds:

"It's simply a personality conflict."

No interviews are conducted.

No documents are reviewed.

No protective measures are taken.

The alleged harassment continues.

The employer may face liability for:

failure to take reasonable protective measures.

The ECtHR's decisions in Špadijer, C. v Romania and N.Ö. v Türkiye demonstrate the importance of effective institutional responses. (ECHR)

28. Psychological Injury

Workplace bullying can produce:

anxiety;

depression;

sleep problems;

stress;

loss of concentration;

physical symptoms;

psychiatric illness.

For civil compensation, medical evidence can be crucial.

A claimant should ideally establish:

Bullying → psychological injury → treatment/cost/loss.

The court may require evidence from:

psychiatrists;

psychologists;

occupational physicians;

general practitioners.

29. Non-Pecuniary Damage

Even without substantial financial loss, national law may allow compensation for:

humiliation;

distress;

loss of dignity;

emotional suffering;

invasion of personal integrity.

The ECtHR's practice confirms that psychological integrity and private life can be affected by workplace harassment.

30. Economic Damage

Economic claims may include:

Past salary

Income lost because of:

sick leave;

forced resignation;

dismissal.

Future earnings

Where bullying causes:

career interruption;

reduced earning capacity;

inability to return to equivalent employment.

Medical expenses

Such as:

therapy;

psychiatric treatment;

medication;

rehabilitation.

Pension loss

Where career interruption reduces pension entitlements.

31. Career Damage

A senior employee might claim:

"Because of the bullying, I was forced to resign and lost the opportunity to become a director."

This is difficult to quantify.

Courts may require evidence concerning:

promotion probability;

previous performance;

objective career trajectory;

comparable employees.

Speculative career claims are generally more difficult than documented salary loss.

32. Constructive Dismissal

In some European systems, severe workplace bullying may lead to:

resignation treated legally as employer-caused termination.

The employee may argue:

"I did not voluntarily leave; the employer's conduct made continued employment intolerable."

This can be highly significant for:

severance;

unemployment benefits;

damages;

notice periods.

The precise doctrine varies by national law.

33. Bullying and Sick Leave

A common pattern is:

Bullying → illness → sick leave → further disciplinary action.

This creates difficult causation questions.

For example, an employer may say:

"The employee was disciplined because of excessive absence."

The employee may respond:

"The absence resulted from the employer's bullying."

A court may need medical and employment evidence to determine which event caused which loss.

34. Evidentiary Problems

Bullying frequently occurs:

verbally;

privately;

through informal messages;

without witnesses.

Consequently, evidence may include:

emails;

WhatsApp/Teams/Slack messages;

HR complaints;

diary entries;

performance records;

medical records;

witness statements;

meeting minutes;

audio recordings where lawfully obtained.

35. Pattern Evidence

A single email may not establish bullying.

But 100 emails over 18 months may reveal:

repeated insults;

escalating hostility;

inconsistent instructions;

systematic exclusion.

Courts therefore need to examine the pattern.

This is consistent with the ECtHR's emphasis on examining bullying complaints in their full factual context. (ECHR)

36. Employer Defences

An employer may argue:

Defence 1 — Legitimate management

The conduct was ordinary supervision.

Defence 2 — Performance problems

The employee genuinely performed poorly.

Defence 3 — No repetition

There was only an isolated incident.

Defence 4 — No damage

The employee suffered no compensable injury.

Defence 5 — Lack of causation

The illness or resignation resulted from another cause.

Defence 6 — Independent business reason

The employee was dismissed because of genuine redundancy.

Defence 7 — Employee misconduct

The employer's actions were disciplinary responses to actual misconduct.

The court must distinguish legitimate management from abusive management.

37. Management Authority Is Not Unlimited

Employers generally have legitimate authority to:

criticise performance;

issue disciplinary warnings;

restructure departments;

change assignments;

set deadlines;

impose workplace rules.

But managerial authority cannot necessarily be exercised:

arbitrarily, abusively or in a manner violating employee dignity and applicable legal protections.

The legal question is therefore not:

"Was the manager allowed to manage?"

but:

"Was managerial power exercised lawfully and proportionately?"

38. Compensation and Causation

A claimant may establish:

bullying occurred.

But still lose part of the damages claim because the causal connection between the bullying and a particular loss was not established.

For example:

Bullying caused €10,000 medical expenses.

may be provable.

But:

Bullying caused €1 million loss of lifetime career earnings.

may require much stronger evidence.

The EU civil-service jurisprudence expressly treats unlawfulness, damage and causal connection as cumulative conditions for non-contractual liability. (EUR-Lex)

39. Multiple Causes of Psychological Injury

An employee may already suffer:

family problems;

previous illness;

financial stress;

another workplace dispute.

The defendant may argue:

The workplace conduct was not the primary cause of the illness.

Medical causation therefore becomes important.

Courts may consider whether the workplace bullying was:

the sole cause;

a major cause;

a contributing cause;

or merely coincidental.

40. Compensation Calculation — Hypothetical

Assume:

The court would still have to examine:

proof;

causation;

mitigation;

limitation;

national damages rules;

contributory conduct where relevant.

41. Interim Protection

Compensation after several years may not be enough.

An employee might seek:

transfer away from the alleged bully;

temporary suspension of disciplinary proceedings;

protection from contact;

preservation of evidence;

temporary reassignment;

injunction against further harassment.

Preventive relief can therefore be as important as damages.

42. Settlement

Workplace bullying disputes frequently settle.

A settlement may provide:

financial compensation;

resignation agreement;

neutral reference;

confidentiality;

withdrawal of disciplinary warnings;

correction of personnel records;

transfer;

agreed statement of employment;

reimbursement of legal expenses.

The precise enforceability of such agreements depends on national law.

43. Interaction with Occupational Health and Safety

European employers increasingly have obligations concerning:

psychosocial risks;

workplace stress;

violence;

harassment;

mental health.

Bullying may therefore constitute both:

a civil wrong against an individual

and

a failure of occupational-risk management.

This can strengthen the evidentiary case where the employer knew of repeated complaints but failed to act.

44. Remote-Work Bullying

Modern workplace bullying can occur digitally.

Examples include:

exclusion from Teams/Slack channels;

deliberately withholding digital information;

humiliating employees in video meetings;

excessive after-hours messaging;

public criticism in group chats;

monitoring designed to intimidate;

deliberately excluding remote employees from important discussions.

The physical absence of the bully does not eliminate the possibility of harassment.

45. Bullying Through Surveillance

Employers may lawfully monitor certain workplace activities, depending on national law.

But surveillance can become abusive where it is:

excessive;

targeted;

humiliating;

discriminatory;

unnecessary;

disproportionate.

This can create overlapping issues under:

employment law;

privacy law;

GDPR;

Article 8 ECHR.

46. Bullying and Whistleblowing

The connection between bullying and whistleblowing is particularly important.

An employee reports wrongdoing.

Then:

duties are removed;

colleagues are instructed not to speak to the employee;

negative reviews begin;

disciplinary investigations commence.

The employee can argue:

bullying was retaliation for protected reporting.

Špadijer v Montenegro is especially important because the alleged workplace bullying occurred after the applicant reported misconduct. (ECHR)

47. Bullying and Trade-Union Activity

An employee may face harassment because of:

trade-union membership;

participation in collective bargaining;

labour organising.

Such cases can involve additional protections under:

national labour law;

freedom of association;

Article 11 ECHR;

ILO principles.

The compensation analysis may therefore become broader than ordinary bullying.

48. Bullying by Peers Versus Bullying by Management

Managerial bullying

Generally easier to connect to employer responsibility because the perpetrator exercises institutional authority.

Peer bullying

The employer may still be responsible if it:

knew;

should have known;

failed to investigate;

failed to take protective action.

The legal question therefore becomes:

What did the employer know and what did it reasonably do in response?

49. Bullying by Customers or Third Parties

An employee may be harassed by:

patients;

customers;

contractors;

clients;

suppliers.

An employer may still have occupational-health obligations if it knows that such conduct creates a foreseeable workplace risk.

50. European Litigation Test

A useful legal test for a workplace bullying compensation claim is:

Step 1

Identify the alleged conduct.

Step 2

Determine whether it was isolated or part of a pattern.

Step 3

Determine whether the conduct impaired working conditions or personal integrity.

Step 4

Identify the employer's contractual/statutory duties.

Step 5

Determine whether the employer knew or should have known.

Step 6

Assess the employer's response.

Step 7

Establish physical or psychological injury.

Step 8

Establish economic loss.

Step 9

Prove causation.

Step 10

Determine available remedies.

Step 11

Calculate compensation.

Step 12

Consider limitation periods and procedural requirements.

51. Comparative European Principles

European jurisprudence reveals several broad principles.

52. Most Important Distinction: Bad Management vs Legal Bullying

Not every unpleasant workplace is legally abusive.

Poor management

disorganisation;

occasional criticism;

unpopular decisions;

ordinary workload pressure.

Potential bullying

repeated humiliation;

targeted exclusion;

systematic professional degradation;

deliberate isolation;

retaliatory treatment;

sustained intimidation;

conduct causing serious psychological or professional harm.

Courts therefore look for evidence demonstrating more than ordinary workplace friction.

53. The Importance of the Employer's Response

One of the strongest factors in a compensation case can be what happened after the complaint.

Compare:

Employer A

Employee complains → independent investigation → witnesses interviewed → corrective measures → bullying stops.

Employer B

Employee complains → complaint ignored → alleged bully promoted → employee subjected to further harassment.

The second situation may create substantially greater liability exposure.

The ECtHR's workplace-harassment jurisprudence repeatedly stresses the adequacy of the authorities' or institutions' response. (ECHR)

54. Relationship Between Civil and Human-Rights Remedies

An employee may have two distinct routes.

National civil/employment proceedings

Against:

employer or responsible individuals.

Potential remedies:

damages;

reinstatement;

salary;

injunctions.

ECtHR proceedings

Against:

State.

Potential remedy:

just satisfaction;

declaration of violation.

The ECtHR does not simply replace the national employment court.

A Strasbourg case generally focuses on whether the State fulfilled its Convention obligations.

55. Why Špadijer Is Particularly Important

For a legal research paper, Špadijer v Montenegro is arguably the most important European authority specifically combining:

workplace bullying;

whistleblowing;

civil proceedings;

psychological harm;

employer responsibility;

Article 8;

inadequate domestic remedies.

The applicant had actually brought domestic civil proceedings concerning bullying, making the case especially relevant to civil compensation litigation, rather than merely abstract workplace harassment. (ECHR)

56. Why EM v European Parliament Is Particularly Important

For a compensation-focused analysis, EM v Parliament, C-299/21 P is especially valuable because the CJEU:

examined psychological harassment;

addressed impairment of working conditions;

addressed damage;

addressed causation;

and ultimately awarded €7,500 compensation.

(EUR-Lex)

It provides a clear example of a European court moving from:

unlawful workplace treatment

to

quantified compensation.

57. Conclusion

Workplace bullying civil compensation litigation in Europe is a multidimensional area of private and public law.

A serious bullying claim can involve:

employment contracts;

employer duties of care;

occupational safety;

tort/delict;

discrimination;

privacy;

psychological injury;

fundamental rights;

whistleblower protection;

civil damages.

The European case law demonstrates that courts must look beyond isolated workplace incidents and examine the overall pattern, context, power relationship, effect on working conditions and adequacy of the employer's response.

The most important authorities are:

Špadijer v Montenegro (2021) — workplace bullying following whistleblowing and the State's Article 8 positive obligation;

C. v Romania (2022) — inadequate investigation of workplace sexual harassment;

N.Ö. v Türkiye (2025) — context-sensitive investigation of workplace sexual-assault allegations;

EM v European Parliament, C-299/21 P (2022) — psychological harassment, deprivation of work and €7,500 compensation;

XH v European Commission, C-75/24 P (2026) — recent CJEU authority concerning psychological harassment and compensation litigation;

PV v European Commission, C-640/20 P (2023) — psychological harassment, disciplinary measures and material/non-material damage;

Michail v Commission, F-100/09 (2011) — objective requirements for psychological harassment;

De Nicola v EIB, F-55/08 (2009) — workplace mobbing and damages; and

Labiri v EESC, T-904/16 (2018) — psychological harassment and indemnification/settlement.

The central civil-law formula is:

Bullying conduct + breach of an employer's legal duty + actual damage + causal connection = potential compensation liability.

However, bullying is not established merely because an employee experiences a difficult workplace or disagrees with managerial decisions. The strongest claims demonstrate a sustained or sufficiently serious pattern of conduct, its harmful consequences, the employer's knowledge or responsibility, and a legally provable connection between the conduct and the claimed economic or non-economic loss. (ECHR)