Europe upholds the reprimand against Bauzá for harassment of an assistant during his time as a Member of the European Parliament

PalmThe General Court of the European Union on Wednesday rejected the appeal filed by José Ramón Bauzá against the reprimand imposed on him by the European Parliament for harassing a member of his team when he held a seat as a Citizens (Cs) MEP in the previous European legislature. The case dates back to 2022, when a parliamentary assistant to Bauzá reported his superior for psychological harassment to the relevant committee in Parliament, and an investigation was launched that concluded in February 2024, with the announcement by the institution's president, Roberta Metsola, that the harassment of the complainant had been proven.

The European Parliament reprimands José Ramón Bauzá for harassing an advisor

The European Parliament based its decision on Bauzá's behavior, such as demanding the victim's availability 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including weekends, holidays, and vacations, even late at night. Furthermore, the decision states that on several occasions the Balearic politician had made threatening, insulting, or hurtful comments about the complainant, had asked him to perform domestic tasks unrelated to his duties, and had given him contradictory instructions. The punishment imposed by the President of the European Parliament, the former President of the Balearic Islands, was a "reprimand," a less severe sanction that does not entail suspension of salary or voting rights, nor the loss of allowances. According to Metsola's statement at the time, Bauzá decided not to appeal the decision through the established parliamentary channels. However, the politician appealed to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), which on Wednesday issued its first-instance ruling dismissing the appeal, concluding that the MEP had not demonstrated that the committee in charge of the investigation exceeded its powers. The ruling also upholds the committee's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses presented and the steps taken during the proceedings, which Metsola herself detailed in her sanction decision. However, the European High Court does consider the eleven months it took to resolve the case "excessive" and warns that, given the "sensitivity" of harassment cases, the proceedings should be "diligent" and completed "with all due speed"; although it rejects the notion that failure to reach a conclusion within a reasonable timeframe should lead to the annulment of the decision.