Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/2412

28.4.2025

(Case T-155/25)

(C/2025/2412)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IB (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—declare the present action to be admissible and well-founded;

and accordingly,

—annul the decision of 27 November 2024 imposing a disciplinary reprimand on the applicant;

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

—order the EIB to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 38 and 40 of the EIB Staff Regulations and infringement of Annex X to the EIB Staff Rules.

—The applicant submits that the EIB is not permitted to close a disciplinary procedure which was opened with the convening of the Disciplinary Committee in order to open a new disciplinary procedure without a Disciplinary Committee (for the purpose of adopting the measure of a reprimand). Furthermore, the time limits set down by the regulatory framework in respect of the Disciplinary Committee were exceeded without that committee delivering its opinion, with the result that the disciplinary procedure expired and was necessarily closed, in addition to the fact that a reprimand must be adopted summarily, which cannot be the case after a period of more than two years.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to the presumption of innocence and of Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

—According to the applicant, since the disciplinary procedure initiated with the convening of the Disciplinary Committee was not completed, the right to the presumption of innocence prohibits the EIB from reopening a new disciplinary procedure relating to the same facts and complaints.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the author of the measure lacked competence and alleging infringement of Articles 1.1.3 and 1.2 of the Staff Rules.

—The applicant submits, in that regard, that the decisions were taken by an authority lacking competence and that any delegations of power were not published.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the facts complained of have not been clearly established or are not clearly capable of being classified as disciplinary offences.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legality of penalties and of Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

—The applicant submits that the facts complained of result from, and must be viewed in connection with, facts prior to the entry into force of the Staff Regulations which included penalties for retired staff. The applicant having retired, the EIB acted in breach of the principle of legality of penalties enshrined, inter alia, in Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2412/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—