# C_2020262EN.01002902.xml

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/29

---

Action brought on 20 May 2020 — KF v EIB

(Case T-299/20)

(2020/C 262/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KF (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

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 27 January 2020 and communicated to the applicant by email on 18 February 2020, by which the applicant was informed that her complaint following the Dignity at Work Procedure, was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the President of the EIB dated 27 January 2020 and communicated to the applicant by email on 18 February 2020, by which the applicant was informed that her complaint following the Dignity at Work Procedure, was rejected;

| — | grant compensation for the material prejudice suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant compensation for the material prejudice suffered;

| — | grant compensation for the moral prejudice suffered; and |
| --- | --- |

—

grant compensation for the moral prejudice suffered; and

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

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 violation of the duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to state reasons.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is manifestly illegal insofar as it endorses the conclusions of the Panel which substituted its own assessment to that of the Appointing authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is manifestly illegal insofar as it endorses the conclusions of the Panel which substituted its own assessment to that of the Appointing authority.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of appreciation, wrong interpretation by the Panel of the legal concept of harassment and violation of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of appreciation, wrong interpretation by the Panel of the legal concept of harassment and violation of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of good administration and duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of good administration and duty of care.

| 5. | The applicant also considers that the illegalities set out in the appeal amount to faults committed by the defendant. The applicant therefore seeks compensation for the material and moral damage arising from the contested decisions. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The applicant also considers that the illegalities set out in the appeal amount to faults committed by the defendant. The applicant therefore seeks compensation for the material and moral damage arising from the contested decisions.

---