- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-199/25: Action brought on 25 March 2025 – IO v EIB
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025TN0199
62025TN0199
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/2025/3300
24.6.2025
(Case T-199/25)
(C/2025/3300)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: IO (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)
Defendant: European Investment Bank
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the decision of 16 December 2024 insofar as it rejects the applicant’s Dignity at work complaint of 4 July 2024 (lodged on 5 July);
—order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, to EUR 20 000; and,
—order to the defendant to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 22.3 and Article 16.1 of the Dignity at work policy.
Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 1.1 a) of the EIB Dignity at work policy and some errors of assessment.
Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty to provide assistance and of the duty of care.
On the request for compensation, the applicant exposes the fault committed by the defendant, the damage he suffered and the link between the fault and the damage.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3300/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—