EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/48

(Case T-872/19)

(2020/C 68/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IM (represented by: D. Giabbani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—admit this action as procedurally valid;

—on the merits see the action as justified;

—declare the decision of 3 October 2019, repeated and reiterated on 9 October 2019, unlawful and incorrect;

—consequently, order the European Investment Bank to pay to the applicant in respect of the abovementioned heads of claim the sum of EUR 143 915,70 in respect of non-material damage and the sum of EUR 1 726 988,40 in respect of material damage or any other amount, even greater, to be assessed ex aequo et bono by the Court or by experts, together with statutory interest from the date of the present application until payment is made in full;

—order the opposing party to pay the costs and expenses incurred.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 20 of the Statutes of the European Investment Fund which provides that ‘the Chief Executive shall be appointed for a term of up to 5 years and shall be eligible for reappointment’.

2.Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s letter of appointment of 5 March 2014 and its addendum on the ground that it is apparent from those documents and from the extension of the applicant’s term of office beyond 15 March 2017 that there was an agreement allowing him to work until the age of 67 and even thereafter.

3.Third plea in law, alleging direct discrimination on account of the applicant’s age. The applicant submits that by rejecting his application solely on the basis of his age the recruitment panel infringed the principle of non-discrimination.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement relating to the applicant’s confidential and personal data. The applicant submits that by relying on the content of the letter of appointment for the reasoning of its decision, the recruitment panel acknowledges that it was aware of a document that it was not supposed to have in its possession and which contained personal data relating to the applicant.