Civil Law and Workplace Harassment Civil Compensation Claims in Europe

1. Introduction

Workplace harassment is increasingly treated in European law as a civil, employment, equality, privacy and human-rights issue, rather than merely an internal workplace-management problem.

A workplace-harassment claim may arise from:

repeated bullying or humiliation;

psychological harassment or “mobbing”;

sexual harassment;

unwanted sexual conduct;

discriminatory harassment;

intimidation, threats or degrading treatment;

systematic exclusion from work;

abuse of managerial authority;

hostile communications;

retaliation after a complaint;

harassment combined with unlawful dismissal or demotion;

failure by an employer to investigate or prevent harassment.

The important point is that compensation can arise from several different legal bases simultaneously. Depending on the country, the employee may rely upon employment law, contractual duties, tort/delict, equality legislation, occupational-safety rules, data/privacy law, or human-rights principles.

European case law also demonstrates that an employer can potentially incur liability not only for personally committing harassment, but for failing to take reasonable preventive, investigative and protective measures.

A particularly important recent authority is C. v. Romania, where the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 8 because the authorities had failed adequately to investigate allegations of sexual harassment at work and protect the complainant against secondary victimisation; the Court awarded EUR 7,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (HUDOC)

2. Meaning of Workplace Harassment

There is no single definition applicable identically throughout Europe.

In general, workplace harassment involves unwanted conduct connected with employment which violates or threatens the dignity, psychological integrity, physical integrity, equality or professional position of an employee.

It can be:

A. Psychological harassment

Examples include:

persistent humiliation;

insulting comments;

unreasonable criticism;

social isolation;

deliberately withholding information;

assigning degrading tasks;

unjustified surveillance;

repeated threats;

systematic undermining of professional competence.

This is frequently described as mobbing in continental European legal systems.

B. Sexual harassment

Examples include:

unwanted sexual advances;

sexual comments;

sexual propositions;

unwanted touching;

sexual messages;

threats connected with sexual demands;

creating a sexually hostile work environment.

C. Discriminatory harassment

Harassment can constitute discrimination where it is connected with:

sex;

race or ethnic origin;

religion or belief;

disability;

age;

sexual orientation;

other protected characteristics under national or EU law.

The CJEU has expressly treated harassment as a form of prohibited discrimination under EU equality legislation. In Coleman, for example, the Court held that harassment protection could apply even where the employee was not herself disabled but suffered adverse treatment connected with her disabled child. (InfoCuria)

3. European Legal Framework

Workplace harassment is governed by several overlapping sources.

A. Employment contract

The employment relationship commonly imposes duties concerning:

dignity;

good faith;

mutual respect;

occupational safety;

protection from foreseeable harm;

fair treatment.

An employer's breach can therefore constitute contractual liability.

B. Tort/delict law

National civil codes may permit compensation for:

bodily injury;

psychiatric or psychological injury;

damage to reputation;

infringement of personality rights;

unlawful interference with dignity;

economic loss;

non-economic or moral damage.

The terminology differs between countries.

For example, civil-law systems may refer to:

moral damage;

non-material damage;

personality rights;

unlawful interference;

delictual liability.

C. EU equality law

EU equality directives are particularly important where harassment has a discriminatory character.

The principal framework includes:

Directive 2000/78/EC — employment equality concerning religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation;

Directive 2006/54/EC — gender equality in employment;

Directive 2000/43/EC — racial and ethnic equality;

national legislation implementing these directives.

Under EU equality law, harassment can itself constitute discrimination.

D. European Convention on Human Rights

The European Convention on Human Rights can become relevant particularly where the State fails to protect an employee from serious harassment.

Relevant provisions include:

Article 3

Protection against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.

Article 8

Protection of private life, personal integrity, dignity and psychological well-being.

Article 13

Right to an effective remedy.

Article 14

Non-discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights.

The Strasbourg Court has increasingly emphasised the positive obligations of States to establish effective legal and institutional protection against serious workplace sexual harassment.

4. Who Can Be Liable?

A civil compensation claim can potentially involve several defendants.

4.1 Harasser personally

The individual perpetrator may be liable for:

intentional or negligent injury;

assault;

harassment;

sexual misconduct;

defamation;

invasion of personality rights;

psychological injury.

4.2 Employer

The employer may be liable where:

management itself committed the harassment;

supervisors harassed an employee;

the employer failed to prevent foreseeable harassment;

complaints were ignored;

an investigation was inadequate;

the employer retaliated against the complainant;

the employer failed to separate the victim and perpetrator;

the employer permitted a hostile environment to continue.

4.3 Public authority

Where the employer is a public institution, additional duties may arise from:

administrative law;

public-service law;

constitutional rights;

Article 8 ECHR;

statutory equality obligations.

4.4 Supervisors and managers

Managers may incur personal liability where they:

directly participate in harassment;

knowingly permit harassment;

retaliate against the complainant;

falsify an investigation;

conceal evidence.

5. The Employer's Duty to Prevent Harassment

A central principle is that liability may arise from inaction.

An employer does not necessarily satisfy its legal obligations simply by saying:

“The harassment was committed by another employee.”

The relevant questions can include:

Was the employer aware of the problem?

Should the employer reasonably have known?

Did the employee complain?

Were there previous complaints?

Did colleagues witness the conduct?

Was there an internal harassment policy?

Was the policy actually enforced?

Was an impartial investigation conducted?

Were protective measures taken?

Was retaliation prevented?

The more serious and foreseeable the conduct, the stronger the argument for employer responsibility.

6. Compensation Available to the Victim

A successful claim may involve several categories of damage.

A. Physical injury

Compensation can cover:

medical expenses;

treatment;

rehabilitation;

future medical costs.

B. Psychological injury

This can be particularly important in harassment cases.

Possible injuries include:

depression;

anxiety;

post-traumatic symptoms;

sleep disorders;

stress-related illness;

psychological trauma.

The claimant normally needs appropriate medical or expert evidence where significant psychiatric injury is alleged.

C. Non-pecuniary or moral damage

This compensates for:

humiliation;

distress;

loss of dignity;

emotional suffering;

interference with private life;

damage to personal integrity.

European courts increasingly recognise that harassment may cause legally compensable non-material harm even where financial loss is difficult to prove.

In C. v. Romania, the ECtHR specifically recognised non-pecuniary damage and awarded EUR 7,500. (HUDOC)

D. Lost earnings

The employee may claim:

lost salary;

lost bonuses;

lost promotion opportunities;

unemployment-related losses;

reduced earning capacity.

However, causation must generally be demonstrated.

For example:

Harassment → resignation → unemployment

may support a claim for lost earnings if the employee can establish that the harassment caused the employment loss.

E. Career damage

Depending upon national law, damages may potentially reflect:

delayed promotion;

forced transfer;

loss of professional opportunities;

damage to professional reputation.

F. Litigation costs

National law determines whether and to what extent legal costs can be recovered.

7. Important Case Laws

Case 1 — C. v. Romania

European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 47358/20, 30 August 2022

This is one of the most directly relevant modern European authorities.

Facts

The applicant was employed by a cleaning company and worked at a railway station. She alleged that the station manager repeatedly subjected her to unwanted sexual conduct over approximately two years.

She complained to the authorities and provided evidence, including recordings and witnesses.

The investigation was inadequate.

Judgment

The ECtHR found a violation of Article 8 ECHR.

The Court emphasised:

the complainant's personal integrity;

the State's positive obligations;

the inadequacy of the investigation;

protection against secondary victimisation.

The Court awarded EUR 7,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (HUDOC)

Importance

This case demonstrates that workplace sexual harassment is not merely a private employment dispute.

Where national authorities fail to provide effective protection and investigation, State responsibility under Article 8 may arise.

Case 2 — E.A. and European Association for Combating Violence Against Women at Work v. France

ECtHR, Application No. 30556/22, 4 September 2025

This is a particularly significant recent Strasbourg authority.

Subject matter

The case concerned alleged sexual violence and shortcomings in the legal and investigative framework.

Court's approach

The Court considered:

the State's positive obligations;

effective investigation;

the treatment of sexual violence allegations;

excessive procedural delay;

assessment of consent;

protection of victims.

The Court identified shortcomings in both the applicable framework and its implementation. (HUDOC)

Importance for workplace harassment

The case reinforces the proposition that States must maintain effective legal and procedural mechanisms capable of protecting individuals against serious sexual misconduct.

Thus, civil compensation cannot be considered in isolation from the State's obligation to provide effective protection.

Case 3 — Coleman v Attridge Law

CJEU, Case C-303/06, 17 July 2008

Issue

The case concerned harassment connected with disability.

Principle

The CJEU held that harassment under the EU equality framework constitutes a form of prohibited discrimination and that protection is not confined only to persons who themselves possess the protected characteristic.

The Court also recognised the importance of burden-of-proof rules where the claimant establishes facts capable of giving rise to an inference of harassment. (InfoCuria)

Importance

The case is important for compensation litigation because harassment may activate:

equality law;

anti-discrimination remedies;

burden-shifting mechanisms;

compensation for discriminatory treatment.

Case 4 — Arjona Camacho v Securitas Seguridad España

CJEU, Case C-407/14, 17 December 2015

Although the case concerned discriminatory dismissal rather than a classic standalone harassment claim, it is important for the compensation principles applicable to employment discrimination.

The CJEU examined Article 18 of Directive 2006/54 concerning compensation for loss and damage and the requirement for remedies to have an effective and deterrent character. (InfoCuria)

Importance

The case supports an important distinction:

Compensation must be capable of genuinely repairing the harm; purely symbolic compensation may be insufficient where EU equality law requires effective redress.

It is particularly relevant when harassment is connected with sex discrimination.

Case 5 — Michail v European Commission

EU Civil Service Tribunal, Case F-100/09, 13 September 2011

Subject

The case involved allegations of psychological harassment within the EU institutions.

The applicant sought compensation for non-pecuniary harm allegedly resulting from psychological harassment.

The Tribunal discussed the legal concept of psychological harassment and the requirement for conduct capable of discrediting the person or impairing working conditions. (Court of Justice of the European Union)

Importance

This case illustrates that European employment law recognises psychological harassment/mobbing as a legally identifiable category, rather than requiring every dispute to be characterised simply as ordinary managerial conflict.

Case 6 — De Nicola v European Investment Bank

EU Civil Service Tribunal, Case F-55/08, 30 November 2009

Subject

The case concerned alleged:

workplace intimidation;

psychological harassment;

professional assessment disputes;

compensation claims.

The applicant sought a declaration that he had been subjected to workplace “mobbing” and sought compensation.

The Tribunal's case record demonstrates the availability of damages litigation in the European civil-service context for alleged psychological harassment. (curia)

Importance

The case is useful for distinguishing:

legitimate managerial disagreement

from

systematic conduct amounting to psychological harassment.

Not every negative performance review or workplace disagreement automatically constitutes harassment.

Case 7 — PV v European Commission

General Court, Joined Cases T-786/16 and T-224/18, judgment 30 January 2020

This case concerned allegations of psychological harassment in the EU civil service, together with disciplinary and administrative measures.

The General Court examined the relationship between alleged harassment, requests for assistance and disciplinary decisions. (InfoCuria)

Importance

The case illustrates that harassment claims can become intertwined with:

disciplinary procedures;

administrative decisions;

requests for institutional assistance;

professional reputation;

compensation.

Case 8 — Vicent del Campo v Spain

ECtHR, Application No. 25527/13, 6 November 2018

This case concerned a Spanish employment dispute in which a domestic court had identified an individual by name and described his conduct as harassment/bullying.

The ECtHR considered the relationship between workplace-harassment findings and the alleged harasser's reputation and private life under Article 8.

The Court emphasised that reputation and honour fall within the concept of private life. (HUDOC)

Importance

This case demonstrates that harassment litigation creates rights and interests on both sides:

victims have rights to effective protection;

persons accused of harassment also have procedural and reputational rights.

Therefore, an investigation must be fair and procedurally reliable.

8. Comparative Case Table

9. Harassment Versus Ordinary Workplace Conflict

This distinction is extremely important.

Not every unpleasant workplace event constitutes harassment.

Ordinary workplace conflict may include:

legitimate criticism;

negative performance appraisal;

reasonable workload allocation;

disciplinary warnings;

refusal of promotion based on legitimate criteria;

restructuring;

managerial disagreement.

Harassment is more likely where there is:

repetition;

humiliation;

intimidation;

targeting of a particular employee;

discriminatory motivation;

sexual misconduct;

systematic exclusion;

abuse of authority;

unreasonable conduct lacking legitimate justification;

serious interference with working conditions.

The context and cumulative effect are often more important than examining one isolated incident.

10. Repeated Conduct and the “Mobbing” Concept

Continental European employment law frequently uses concepts equivalent to mobbing or psychological harassment.

A typical mobbing case may look like:

Employee A is repeatedly excluded from meetings → deprived of essential information → publicly humiliated → given meaningless duties → subjected to unreasonable criticism → threatened with dismissal → suffers psychological injury.

Each individual act might appear relatively minor.

The cumulative pattern, however, may constitute harassment.

This is why courts often examine:

duration;

frequency;

sequence;

relationship between actors;

power imbalance;

objective effect;

subjective effect;

employer knowledge.

11. Sexual Harassment: A More Serious Category

Sexual harassment can involve particularly strong legal protections.

The court may consider:

Was the conduct unwanted?

Was it sexual in character?

Was there a power imbalance?

Did the employee reject the conduct?

Did the conduct continue?

Was employment status affected?

Was there retaliation?

Did the employer investigate?

Was the victim protected from further contact?

Was the investigation independent?

C. v. Romania is particularly important because the ECtHR focused not simply on the underlying allegations but also on the State's failure to conduct an adequate investigation and prevent secondary victimisation. (HUDOC)

12. Employer Liability for Failure to Investigate

One of the most important developments in European harassment law is the increasing significance of the investigation itself.

Suppose:

Employee A complains that manager B repeatedly sexually harassed her.

The employer:

does nothing;

tells A to “ignore it”;

warns A not to damage B's reputation;

conducts no interviews;

destroys or fails to preserve evidence;

keeps A working directly under B.

Even if the original harassment is difficult to prove, the employer may face an independent liability problem concerning its response.

The employer's post-complaint conduct can therefore become a separate cause of action.

13. Secondary Victimisation

Secondary victimisation occurs where a complainant suffers additional harm because of reporting harassment.

Examples include:

retaliation;

demotion;

dismissal;

disciplinary action;

public humiliation;

hostile treatment by management;

forcing the complainant to repeatedly confront the alleged perpetrator;

dismissing the complaint without investigation.

This is particularly significant in sexual-harassment litigation.

C. v. Romania expressly emphasised the State's obligation to protect complainants against secondary victimisation. (HUDOC)

14. Burden of Proof

Harassment is frequently difficult to prove because it happens:

privately;

through verbal interactions;

without witnesses;

through informal communications;

over a long period.

Accordingly, evidence may include:

emails;

WhatsApp or workplace messages;

recordings where lawfully obtained;

HR complaints;

witness statements;

medical records;

psychological reports;

diary entries;

performance evaluations;

disciplinary documents;

CCTV;

meeting records;

evidence of comparable treatment of colleagues.

EU discrimination law can also modify the traditional evidential structure.

Coleman is important because the CJEU recognised that once a claimant establishes facts from which harassment may be presumed, the burden can shift to the respondent to demonstrate that there was no prohibited harassment. (InfoCuria)

15. Causation

The employee must generally establish a connection between the unlawful conduct and the damage claimed.

For example:

Stronger causal chain

Repeated sexual harassment → documented complaint → employer ignores complaint → psychiatric diagnosis → resignation → loss of income.

More difficult causal chain

One rude comment → several years later employee claims extensive career loss.

The second claim presents greater difficulties concerning:

causation;

foreseeability;

proportionality;

remoteness;

proof of damage.

16. Medical Evidence

Psychological injury is often central to harassment compensation.

Evidence may include:

psychiatrist reports;

psychologist reports;

general practitioner records;

sick-leave documentation;

prescriptions;

treatment records;

expert assessment of permanent impairment.

However, proof of a medical psychiatric disorder is not necessarily the only form of compensable harm.

An employee may also suffer:

humiliation;

loss of dignity;

emotional distress;

invasion of personal integrity.

Such non-material harm can be legally relevant independently of substantial financial loss, depending upon the applicable national law.

17. Available Remedies

A victim may potentially seek:

1. Compensation

For:

financial loss;

medical expenses;

psychological injury;

non-material damage;

lost earnings.

2. Injunction

An order preventing continuing harassment.

3. Workplace transfer

In suitable circumstances.

4. Reinstatement

Especially where dismissal was retaliatory or discriminatory.

5. Declaration

A court may formally declare that harassment occurred.

6. Erasure or correction of records

Potentially relevant where false disciplinary or HR records were created.

7. Disciplinary action

Against the perpetrator.

8. Regulatory enforcement

Equality or labour authorities may become involved.

9. Human-rights remedies

Where State responsibility is established.

18. Employer Defences

Employers commonly argue:

A. No harassment occurred

The employer disputes the factual allegations.

B. Legitimate managerial decision

The conduct was ordinary management rather than harassment.

C. Lack of knowledge

The employer did not know and could not reasonably have known about the conduct.

D. Prompt investigation

The employer acted quickly after receiving the complaint.

E. Appropriate protective measures

The employer separated the parties or took other reasonable measures.

F. Lack of causation

The claimed illness or financial loss resulted from another cause.

G. Excessive damages

The employer accepts some wrongdoing but disputes the amount claimed.

H. Limitation

The claim was filed outside the applicable limitation period.

19. Distinguishing Employer Liability from Individual Liability

This distinction is important.

Individual perpetrator

The question is:

Did this person commit the unlawful conduct?

Employer

The questions become:

Did the employer itself commit the conduct, or did it fail to prevent, investigate or respond to foreseeable harassment?

State

The question becomes:

Did the State provide an effective legal and institutional framework for protecting the employee?

The three forms of responsibility should not be confused.

20. Relationship Between Civil and Criminal Proceedings

Serious workplace harassment may simultaneously involve:

civil liability;

employment proceedings;

discrimination proceedings;

administrative proceedings;

criminal proceedings.

For example, sexual assault at work could potentially produce:

Criminal case → punishment of perpetrator

Civil claim → compensation

Employment proceedings → dismissal/discipline

Equality proceedings → discrimination remedy

Human-rights proceedings → State responsibility

These proceedings can interact but are legally distinct.

21. Hypothetical Example

Assume a manager repeatedly makes sexual comments to an employee for eighteen months.

The employee:

tells the manager to stop;

complains to HR;

provides messages;

identifies witnesses;

receives no meaningful response;

develops anxiety and depression;

takes medical leave;

is later dismissed after continuing to complain.

A European civil-law analysis would examine:

Step 1 — Harassment

Were the comments unwanted and sufficiently serious/repeated?

Step 2 — Equality law

Was the conduct sexual or discriminatory?

Step 3 — Employer knowledge

Did HR receive a complaint?

Step 4 — Preventive duty

Could the employer reasonably have prevented further harassment?

Step 5 — Investigation

Was there a genuine and impartial investigation?

Step 6 — Retaliation

Was dismissal connected with the employee's complaint?

Step 7 — Damage

What physical, psychological and financial harm occurred?

Step 8 — Causation

Can the medical and employment evidence connect the harm to the harassment?

Step 9 — Compensation

Possible categories include:

psychiatric injury;

emotional suffering;

lost salary;

medical expenses;

career loss;

other legally recognised damage.

22. Key Principles Emerging from European Case Law

The cases collectively support several important propositions.

Principle 1 — Workplace harassment can engage fundamental rights

Serious harassment may implicate dignity, private life and personal integrity under Article 8 ECHR.

C. v. Romania is particularly important here. (HUDOC)

Principle 2 — Sexual harassment requires effective protection

States cannot necessarily satisfy their obligations merely by having legislation on paper.

Effective investigation and enforcement matter.

Principle 3 — Harassment may constitute discrimination

The CJEU's equality jurisprudence confirms that harassment can fall within EU anti-discrimination law. (InfoCuria)

Principle 4 — Compensation must be meaningful

EU equality law requires effective remedies, rather than merely nominal protection. Arjona Camacho is important on the compensatory and deterrent dimensions of employment-equality remedies. (InfoCuria)

Principle 5 — Psychological harassment is legally recognisable

EU civil-service cases such as Michail and De Nicola demonstrate that psychological harassment/mobbing can form the basis of formal legal proceedings. (Court of Justice of the European Union)

Principle 6 — Investigation is itself legally significant

Failure to investigate properly can create an independent legal problem, especially in serious sexual-harassment cases.

Principle 7 — The accused also has procedural rights

Vicent del Campo demonstrates that harassment proceedings must also respect reputation and private-life interests of persons accused of harassment. (HUDOC)

23. Comparison of Different Claims

24. Exam-Ready Legal Test

For an examination or legal memorandum, workplace-harassment compensation can be analysed through the following sequence:

1. Identify the conduct

What exactly happened?

↓

2. Characterise the conduct

Bullying, mobbing, sexual harassment, discriminatory harassment, retaliation, etc.

↓

3. Identify the legal relationship

Employee–employer, public servant–State, contractor–company, etc.

↓

4. Identify the applicable law

Contract, tort/delict, employment law, equality law, ECHR and potentially EU law.

↓

5. Establish unlawfulness

Was the conduct contrary to statutory, contractual, equality or personality-right obligations?

↓

6. Establish employer responsibility

Did the employer cause, permit, ignore or inadequately investigate the harassment?

↓

7. Prove causation

Did the harassment cause the alleged injury or economic loss?

↓

8. Quantify damage

Physical + psychological + financial + non-material damage.

↓

9. Consider defences

Legitimate management, lack of knowledge, adequate investigation, causation, limitation, proportionality.

↓

10. Select remedies

Compensation, injunction, reinstatement, declaration, disciplinary measures or other national remedies.

25. Overall Conclusion

European workplace-harassment law is multi-layered. A victim's compensation claim may arise simultaneously under employment contract, civil liability, equality legislation, personality-rights law and, in serious cases involving inadequate State protection, the European Convention on Human Rights.

The strongest European authorities demonstrate three particularly important developments.

First, harassment is capable of producing legally compensable psychological, moral and economic harm.

Second, employer responsibility is not limited to personally committing harassment. Failure to prevent, investigate or stop foreseeable harassment can itself generate liability.

Third, serious sexual harassment can engage positive human-rights obligations of the State. The importance of this principle is illustrated by C. v. Romania, where inadequate investigation of workplace sexual-harassment allegations violated Article 8 and resulted in an award of EUR 7,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (HUDOC)

Thus, the modern European approach can be summarised as:

Workplace harassment is not merely an interpersonal dispute. Where unlawful harassment violates dignity, equality, personal integrity or employment rights, the victim may have a civil claim for compensation, while the employer and, in appropriate circumstances, the State may bear responsibility for failing to provide effective protection and redress.