# C_2020103EN.01003801.xml

| 30.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/38

---

Application brought on 7 February 2020 — IM v EIB and EIF

(Case T-80/20)

(2020/C 103/53)

Language of procedure: French

Parties

Applicant: IM (represented by: D. Giabbani, lawyer)

Defendants: European Investment Bank and European Investment Fund

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | admit this action as procedurally valid; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit this action as procedurally valid;

| — | declare the action well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action well-founded;

| — | declare that IM has been excluded from the recruitment process in an unlawful manner and through the misuse of power; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that IM has been excluded from the recruitment process in an unlawful manner and through the misuse of power;

| — | declare that the recruitment procedure for the new Chief Executive is null and void, so that, on the same grounds, the appointment of the new Chief Executive notified on 13 December 2019 is also null and void; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the recruitment procedure for the new Chief Executive is null and void, so that, on the same grounds, the appointment of the new Chief Executive notified on 13 December 2019 is also null and void;

| — | therefore, annul the appointment of the new Director-General of the European Investment Fund; |
| --- | --- |

—

therefore, annul the appointment of the new Director-General of the European Investment Fund;

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

—

order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea alleging infringement of Article 20 of the Statutes of the European Investment Fund, according to which ‘the Chief Executive shall be appointed for a term of up to 5 years and shall be eligible for reappointment.’ |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea alleging infringement of Article 20 of the Statutes of the European Investment Fund, according to which ‘the Chief Executive shall be appointed for a term of up to 5 years and shall be eligible for reappointment.’

| 2. | Second plea alleging breach of the terms of the applicant’s letter of appointment of 5 March 2014 and the addendum thereto, on the ground that those documents and the extension of the applicant’s term of service after 15 March 2017 are evidence of an agreement authorising him to work until the age of 67 and even beyond that age. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea alleging breach of the terms of the applicant’s letter of appointment of 5 March 2014 and the addendum thereto, on the ground that those documents and the extension of the applicant’s term of service after 15 March 2017 are evidence of an agreement authorising him to work until the age of 67 and even beyond that age.

| 3. | Third plea alleging direct discrimination on the grounds of the applicant’s age. In the applicant’s view, by rejecting his application solely on the basis of his age, the recruitment panel breached the principle of non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea alleging direct discrimination on the grounds of the applicant’s age. In the applicant’s view, by rejecting his application solely on the basis of his age, the recruitment panel breached the principle of non-discrimination.

| 4. | Fourth plea alleging breach of the applicant’s confidential and personal data. The applicant submits that, by relying on the contents of the letter of appointment as the basis for its decision, the recruitment panel acknowledges that it had read a document which should not have been in its possession and which contained personal data relating to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea alleging breach of the applicant’s confidential and personal data. The applicant submits that, by relying on the contents of the letter of appointment as the basis for its decision, the recruitment panel acknowledges that it had read a document which should not have been in its possession and which contained personal data relating to the applicant.

---