# C_2020215EN.01004302.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/43

---

Action brought on 29 April 2020 — HB v EIB

(Case T-234/20)

(2020/C 215/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: HB (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul (i) the 2017 performance appraisal and (ii) the decision of the adjudication panel, rejecting the applicant’s appeal against her 2017 performance appraisal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul (i) the 2017 performance appraisal and (ii) the decision of the adjudication panel, rejecting the applicant’s appeal against her 2017 performance appraisal;

| — | order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 50 000, in compensation for the loss of a chance, together with interest at the legal rate from the date of delivery of the judgment until payment in full has been made; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 50 000, in compensation for the loss of a chance, together with interest at the legal rate from the date of delivery of the judgment until payment in full has been made;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the claim for annulment of the performance appraisal, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration and of the right to confidentiality, insofar as, by commenting on the applicant’s alleged improper behaviour with a senior manager in June 2017 in the performance appraisal, X breached the principle of good administration as well as the applicant’s right to confidentiality. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration and of the right to confidentiality, insofar as, by commenting on the applicant’s alleged improper behaviour with a senior manager in June 2017 in the performance appraisal, X breached the principle of good administration as well as the applicant’s right to confidentiality.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers, insofar as the applicant claims that she was harassed by X during the reporting period, that (i) as a result, X did not have the objectivity to assess her performance and thus vitiated his comments and marks with manifest error, and (ii) the appraisal report was adopted with the intention of harming the applicant and is thus vitiated by misuse of powers |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers, insofar as the applicant claims that she was harassed by X during the reporting period, that (i) as a result, X did not have the objectivity to assess her performance and thus vitiated his comments and marks with manifest error, and (ii) the appraisal report was adopted with the intention of harming the applicant and is thus vitiated by misuse of powers

In support of her claim for the annulment of the appeal panel’s decision, the applicant relies on two further pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging procedural irregularities, insofar as procedural irregularities were committed by the adjudication panel (irregular notice to the hearing, irregular adoption of the decision in contumaciam), in the absence of which the outcome of the procedure might have been different. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging procedural irregularities, insofar as procedural irregularities were committed by the adjudication panel (irregular notice to the hearing, irregular adoption of the decision in contumaciam), in the absence of which the outcome of the procedure might have been different.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard, insofar as, as a result of the procedural irregularities committed, the applicant was not present at the hearing of the adjudication panel and was thus not heard. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard, insofar as, as a result of the procedural irregularities committed, the applicant was not present at the hearing of the adjudication panel and was thus not heard.

In support of her damages claim, the applicant argues that, by rejecting her request for conciliation, illegally, the defendant deprived the applicant of a chance of settling the matter amicably and avoiding proceedings before the General Court.

---