EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-267/24: Action brought on 17 May 2024 – Edge v EIB

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0267

62024TN0267

May 17, 2024
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2025/1229

3.3.2025

(Case T-267/24)

(C/2025/1229)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Christofer Edge (Athens, Greece) (represented by: G. Karampoulia, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of the European Investment Bank of 6 February 2024;

award the applicant the amount of EUR 9 200 in reimbursement of school fees for the year 2023-2024;

award the applicant the amount of EUR 7 200 in reimbursement of school fees for the year 2023-2024;

annul the decisions of the European Investment Bank of 4 October 2023 and 13 October 2023 rejecting the applicant’s requests for reimbursement of his children’s school fees;

order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant raises the following pleas in law:

Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations reasonably formed by the applicant, from the time when he was recruited, as to the fact that his children’s school fees would be covered during his temporary period of employment with the defendant.

Coverage of his childrens’ school fees was part of the applicant’s ‘package’, on account of which he decided to relocate to Bucharest while his family continued to reside in Greece.

At no point was it implied that this benefit could be unilaterally amended by decision of the defendant in respect of a member of the temporary staff such as the applicant.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1229/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia