EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-651/20: Action brought on 23 October 2020 — KL v EIB

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0651

62020TN0651

October 23, 2020
With Google you find a lot.
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

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/28

(Case T-651/20)

(2020/C 443/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KL (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

consequently, annul the EIB’s decision of 28 February 2020 that the applicant’s absence from the medical examinations on 23 December 2019, 3 February and 28 February 2020 were unjustified absences under Article 3.6 of Annex X to the Staff Rules;

if necessary, annul the decision of 15 July rejecting the applicant’s administrative appeal against the initial decision of 28 February 2020;

order the EIB to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

order the EIB to pay the costs in their entirety.

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 and 3.6 of Annex X to the Staff Rules. The applicant maintains in that regard that he could not attend the medical examinations because of a situation of force majeure and his situation therefore falls within the exceptions laid down by the abovementioned rules.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard to the welfare of staff and the principle of proportionality. The applicant submits, inter alia, that the systematic nature of the medical examinations decided on by the defendant following each medical certificate of incapacity is such as to undermine his state of health by obliging him to bring a number of appeals and infringes the abovementioned principles.

3.Third plea in law, raising a plea of illegality. According to the applicant, Article 3.4 of Annex X infringes Articles 31 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the ground that the application of that article results in practice in removing, first, his annual leave and, secondly, all remuneration from the point when he has taken all his annual leave.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia