28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/40

(Case T-16/22)

(2022/C 95/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: NV (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—declare the present application admissible and well founded;

consequently,

—annul the decision of 5 February 2021 characterising as unauthorised the applicant’s absences during the following periods: from 29 May 2020 until 15 September 2020, from 30 June 2020 until 30 September 2020, from 7 September 2020 until 7 November 2020, and from 3 November 2020 until 8 January 2021;

—where necessary, annul the decision of 1 October 2021 dismissing the administrative action submitted on 1 April 2021 against the decision of 5 February 2021;

—annul the decision of 20 April 2021 characterising as unauthorised the applicant’s absences from 8 January 2021 until 8 April 2021;

—annul the decision of 3 May 2021 characterising as unauthorised the applicant’s absences from 8 April 2021 until 8 June 2021;

—where necessary, annul the decision of 27 October 2021 dismissing the administrative action submitted on 18 June 2021 against the decisions of 20 April 2021 and of 3 May 2021;

—order EIB to pay the remuneration relating to the periods from 29 May 2020 until 8 January 2021, from 8 January 2021 until 8 April 2021, and from 8 April 2021 until 8 June 2021, together with default interest, the rate of which being the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank plus two percentage points;

—order the EIB to pay compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant;

—order the EIB to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2.3, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.6 of Annex X to the administrative provisions, infringement of Article 34 of the Charter whether or not read in conjunction with Articles 2.3, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.6 of the administrative provisions, manifest error of assessment, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and misuse of rights.

2.Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of diligence and care, infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and manifest error of assessment.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 33c of the Staff Regulations and Article 11 of the administrative provisions.