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-490/21: Action brought on 11 August 2021 — Vanhoudt v EIB

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0490

62021TN0490

August 11, 2021
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

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/20

(Case T-490/21)

(2021/C 422/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

accordingly,

annul the decision of 16 December 2020 to the extent that it dismisses the applicant’s application for the position of Head of Office of the EIB Vice-President and the decision to nominate [confidential] (1) to the position concerned;

annul, where appropriate, the decision of 17 May 2021, communicated to the applicant on 18 May 2021, refusing the applicant’s requests for administrative review of 18 December 2020 and 17 March 2021;

order the EIB to compensate the applicant’s non-material damage, which is assessed, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 4 000;

order the EIB to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea, alleging procedural irregularities and breach of the guidelines on internal mobility and promotion. The applicant submits in that regard, inter alia, that he was never informed of the selection criteria or of the composition of the selection board.

2.Second plea, alleging violation of the vacancy notice and manifest errors of assessment. In support of this plea, the applicant submits that the candidate selected at the end of the selection procedure manifestly did not meet the criteria set.

3.Third plea, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons.

4.Fourth plea, alleging that the guidelines and the vacancy notice, in combination or separately, are unlawful in that they violate the principles of legal certainty, transparency and good administration.

(1) Confidential data redacted.

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