12.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/30

(Case T-529/20)

(2020/C 339/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: LR (represented by: Á. Gómez de la Cruz Pérez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the defendant’s decision of 9 January 2020 rejecting the applicant’s request for a resettlement allowance on the applicant’s return to his centre of interest at the end of his employment relationship with the defendant and the decision of 15 May 2020 rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint of 19 February 2020 against the defendant’s decision of 9 January 2020.

—annul the defendant’s decision of 15 May 2020 rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint of 19 February 2020 seeking the recognition of his right to a resettlement allowance in the event that the General Court of the European Union or the Court of Justice of the European Union recognises that right in respect of the applicants in case T-387/19, DF and DG v EIB.

—order the defendant to pay the resettlement allowance including default interest calculated at the European Central Bank rate increased by two percentage points, until that allowance is paid in full.

—order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging manifest error of law.

—The applicant claims that the fresh interpretation from 2017 of the exception laid down in Article 13(1) of the EIB’s administrative provisions is vitiated by a manifest error of law and is contrary to its own acts.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the requirement to consult the staff representatives.

—The applicant claims that the fresh interpretation amounts to a covert legislative procedure adopted by a body without jurisdiction, with no forms and procedures, in that it did not consult the Staff Committee.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality, acquired rights, legitimate expectations and the absence of any transitional arrangements.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the principle of sound administration.