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-640/24: Action brought on 9 December 2024 – FZ v EIB

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0640

62024TN0640

December 9, 2024
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

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2025/1112

(Case T-640/24)

(C/2025/1112)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FZ (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 2 September 2024, endorsing the conclusions of the Final Report of the EIB Dignity at Work Panel;

order the defendant to pay EUR 926 418 for material damage;

order the defendant to pay EUR 50 000 for moral damage;

order the defendant to pay EUR 15 000 (excluding VAT) for Attorney at law fees for this procedure before the General Court;

order the defendant to pay EUR 20 000 (excluding VAT) for Attorney at law fees for his defence in the Dignity at work procedure.

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 the illegality of the EIB president’s final decision insofar as the moral harassment alleged by the complainant was deemed not to have been established, considering that:

throughout his time at the EIB, the applicant considers that the reported cases of verbal abuse, sexual harassment and physical intimidation created a toxic work environment and that such behaviour of his line manager must be considered as harassment as per EIB Dignity at work policy rules;

despite being aware of such repeated behaviours and statements, the President of the EIB wrongly failed to conclude that there was harassment.

2.Second plea in law, alleging the liability of the defendant for damages suffered by the applicant as a result of the disputed decision.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1112/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

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