Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2024/7353

16.12.2024

(Case T-514/24)

(C/2024/7353)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the Decision of the President of the EIB dated 24 June 2024, endorsing the conclusions of the Final Report of the EIB Dignity at Work Panel rendered in the formal investigation procedure launched against the applicant (‘the contested decision’);

—grant compensation for the moral damage suffered by the applicant amounting to EUR 50 000;

—grant compensation for the legal fees incurred by the applicant for the current application to EUR 35 000 (including VAT).

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging an improper conduct of the dignity at work procedure in breach of the applicant’s right of defence and right to good administration and of the principle of proportionality, considering:

—the failure to conduct proceedings in compliance with the principles of impartiality and independence in breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial;

—a conflict of interest of the director general of Personnel.

2.Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of the contested decision insofar as the alleged moral harassment was not established. The contested decision has been vitiated by errors of assessment concerning:

—the alleged lack of truthful, accurate and timely feedback during the mid-term evaluation;

—the extension of the complainant’s probationary period;

—the personal and family-related comments;

—the use of the EIB’s teleworking arrangements;

—the instance of differential treatment, undue pressure and exacerbated control;

—the accusations and/or insinuations among colleagues of inaccuracies in the complainant’s CV;

—the measures put in place during the probationary period and its extension; and, as a conclusion, there is no evidence of psychological harassment.

3.Third plea in law, alleging the liability of the defendant for damages suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decision and related violations of his fundamental rights.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7353/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—