# C_2020443EN.01002801.xml

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/28

---

Action brought on 23 October 2020 — KL v EIB

(Case T-651/20)

(2020/C 443/33)

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 28 February 2020 that the applicant’s absence from the medical examinations on 23 December 2019, 3 February and 28 February 2020 were unjustified absences under Article 3.6 of Annex X to the Staff Rules; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul the EIB’s decision of 28 February 2020 that the applicant’s absence from the medical examinations on 23 December 2019, 3 February and 28 February 2020 were unjustified absences under Article 3.6 of Annex X to the Staff Rules;

| — | if necessary, annul the decision of 15 July rejecting the applicant’s administrative appeal against the initial decision of 28 February 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

if necessary, annul the decision of 15 July rejecting the applicant’s administrative appeal against the initial decision of 28 February 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 the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2.3 and 3.6 of Annex X to the Staff Rules. The applicant maintains in that regard that he could not attend the medical examinations because of a situation of force majeure and his situation therefore falls within the exceptions laid down by the abovementioned rules. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2.3 and 3.6 of Annex X to the Staff Rules. The applicant maintains in that regard that he could not attend the medical examinations because of a situation of force majeure and his situation therefore falls within the exceptions laid down by the abovementioned rules.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard to the welfare of staff and the principle of proportionality. The applicant submits, inter alia, that the systematic nature of the medical examinations decided on by the defendant following each medical certificate of incapacity is such as to undermine his state of health by obliging him to bring a number of appeals and infringes the abovementioned principles. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard to the welfare of staff and the principle of proportionality. The applicant submits, inter alia, that the systematic nature of the medical examinations decided on by the defendant following each medical certificate of incapacity is such as to undermine his state of health by obliging him to bring a number of appeals and infringes the abovementioned principles.

| 3. | Third plea in law, raising a plea of illegality. According to the applicant, Article 3.4 of Annex X infringes Articles 31 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the ground that the application of that article results in practice in removing, first, his annual leave and, secondly, all remuneration from the point when he has taken all his annual leave. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, raising a plea of illegality. According to the applicant, Article 3.4 of Annex X infringes Articles 31 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the ground that the application of that article results in practice in removing, first, his annual leave and, secondly, all remuneration from the point when he has taken all his annual leave.

---