23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/36

(Case T-536/20)

(2020/C 399/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LU (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—in the first place, annul the final report delivered by the investigation panel on 13 May 2020 as well as the decision of the President of the European Investment Bank, dated 26 May 2020, and any disciplinary procedure taken on the basis of that final report and decision,

—as a subsidiary claim, amend the conclusions of the final report delivered by the investigation panel on 13 May 2020 and the decision of the President of the European Investment Bank, dated 26 May 2020, and order removal of all irrelevant and inappropriate facts and statements from both documents, notably any reference to malicious behaviour or fault of the applicant as well as any reference to a disciplinary procedure,

—in any case, grant the following claims:

—award damages in relation to the violation of the applicant’s physical and mental integrity and his right of freedom of thought and freedom of expression, his right to good administration and his right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, amounting to EUR 25 000;

—award damages in relation to the non-material prejudice suffered by the applicant, amounting to EUR 25 000;

—award compensation for medical costs (not reimbursed under the EIB medical insurance) as a result of the damage caused by the defendant and suffered by the applicant in an amount of EUR 200 (including VAT); and

—order repayment of legal fees for the current proceedings, amounting to a provisional amount of EUR 15 000.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 3 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’): respect for mental integrity and fair and just working conditions.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 10 and 11 of the Charter: freedom of thought and freedom of expression.

3.Third plea in law, alleging violation of the right to have one’s affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time, under Article 41(1) of the Charter.

—The applicant argues that a violation of the duty of impartiality took place because of the defendant’s failure to consider certain arguments and facts;

—Secondly, it is argued that impartiality was not respected because the defendant failed adequately to consider certain comments of the applicant;

—Thirdly, the applicant further argues that a breach of the right to impartial treatment occurred because the defendant failed to engage expert testimony.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging, in relation to the conduct of the formal procedure and the findings of the final investigation panel report, that the applicant’s right, under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, to be heard before an adverse measure is taken, was not respected.

—The applicant alleges that his right to be heard was infringed because a number of his comments were not considered by the investigation panel.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, under Article 47 of the Charter.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging, in relation to the President of the EIB’s endorsement of the final investigation panel report, that the applicant’s right, under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, to be heard before an adverse measure is taken, was not respected.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter: the obligation that the administration give reasons for its decisions.

—The applicant alleges that the defendant violated the obligation to give a reasoned decision since the President of the EIB failed to explain his endorsement of the final investigation panel report.