7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/41

(Case T-659/18)

(2019/C 4/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decisions of the EIB of 27 September 2017 and 28 December 2017;

—order a total compensation of the loss suffered by the applicant.

—in this respect, the applicant requests that EIB be ordered to pay him:

—EUR 30 000 as unpaid salary for 42 days of annual leave and 40,5 days in the TSA-A, amounting to a total of 82,5 leave entitlements;

—EUR 30 000 illegally deducted from the sums upon his departure;

—EUR 50 000 as 3 % contribution of the annual salary into the OSPS (RCVP) until the normal age of retirement;

—EUR 35 000 as the applicant’s bonus entitlement;

—EUR 15 000 as damages in relation to the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant;

—his legal fees for the proceedings amounting to a provisional amount of EUR 15 000;

—the costs of proceedings and all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s absences were not unjustified and that in any case, the EIB should have reacted earlier given the five years period of absences. Such allegations ignore the oral agreement between the applicant and the defendant as to the filling of time-management sheets. Furthermore, there is no legal ground for the employer to proceed with a set-off or deduction of the alleged unjustified absences, with regard to the applicant’s leave entitlements or the sums due to him upon departure.

2.Second plea in law, alleging several faults towards the applicant by the defendant characterised as illegal administrative acts, such as the grievances of unjustified absences, the loss of 82,5 leave entitlements without any legal ground where no set-off or deduction is authorised, the illegal deduction of so-called unjustified absences in the sums due upon departure that do not include the OSPS (RCVP), which directly caused him to suffer loss and an additional moral prejudice.