# C_2021053EN.01005701.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/57

---

Action brought on 18 December 2020 — KL v EIB

(Case T-751/20)

(2021/C 53/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KL (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

| — | consequently, annul the EIB’s decision of 18 May 2020 according to which the applicant’s medical certificates from 18 March to 18 April and from 20 April to 20 May 2020 are invalid under Article 3.3 of Annex X to the administrative provisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul the EIB’s decision of 18 May 2020 according to which the applicant’s medical certificates from 18 March to 18 April and from 20 April to 20 May 2020 are invalid under Article 3.3 of Annex X to the administrative provisions;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the decision dated 12 September 2020 rejecting the applicant’s administrative action against the initial decision of 18 May 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decision dated 12 September 2020 rejecting the applicant’s administrative action against the initial decision of 18 May 2020;

| — | order the EIB to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by 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. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to pay 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, alleging infringement of Article 3.3 of Annex X to the administrative provisions. The applicant is of the opinion, inter alia, that that article is not applicable, on the ground that there is, in this instance, no justified case which would allow the medical service to reject the medical certificates which he has submitted. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging infringement of Article 3.3 of Annex X to the administrative provisions. The applicant is of the opinion, inter alia, that that article is not applicable, on the ground that there is, in this instance, no justified case which would allow the medical service to reject the medical certificates which he has submitted.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging infringement of the duty of care and of the principle of proportionality, as well as an abuse of rights. The applicant claims in that regard that the defendant’s attitude only serves to worsen his medical situation, which is already extremely fragile, on the ground that the contested decisions, by denying the validity of his two medical certificates for the periods from 18 March to 18 April and from 20 April to 20 May 2020 and by threatening him with disciplinary proceedings, seriously exacerbate his general state of anxiety. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging infringement of the duty of care and of the principle of proportionality, as well as an abuse of rights. The applicant claims in that regard that the defendant’s attitude only serves to worsen his medical situation, which is already extremely fragile, on the ground that the contested decisions, by denying the validity of his two medical certificates for the periods from 18 March to 18 April and from 20 April to 20 May 2020 and by threatening him with disciplinary proceedings, seriously exacerbate his general state of anxiety.

---