# C_2021009EN.01003201.xml

| 11.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/32

---

Action brought on 17 November 2020 — HB v EIB

(Case T-689/20)

(2021/C 9/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Deputy Secretary-General of the EIB of 27 April 2020, terminating her contract of employment and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the request for review; and; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Deputy Secretary-General of the EIB of 27 April 2020, terminating her contract of employment and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the request for review; and;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

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 manifest error of assessment, breach of the principle of sound administration and breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff, insofar as:






  — | terminating the applicant’s contract on the ground of budget restrictions was manifestly erroneous, and against JASPERS 2020 Specific Grant Agreement and the decision of Management Committee of the EIB of 2019; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, breach of the principle of sound administration and breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff, insofar as:

—

terminating the applicant’s contract on the ground of budget restrictions was manifestly erroneous, and against JASPERS 2020 Specific Grant Agreement and the decision of Management Committee of the EIB of 2019;

| — | terminating the applicant’s contract on the ground that the workload of JASPERS Smart Development Division, where the applicant was assigned, was lower than that of JASPERS other divisions and that, as a result, there was no business need for keeping the applicant in her position was manifestly erroneous; and |
| --- | --- |

—

terminating the applicant’s contract on the ground that the workload of JASPERS Smart Development Division, where the applicant was assigned, was lower than that of JASPERS other divisions and that, as a result, there was no business need for keeping the applicant in her position was manifestly erroneous; and

| — | terminating the applicant’s contract went manifestly against the interest of the service, whether from an administrative, financial or workload perspective, and breached the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff. |
| --- | --- |

—

terminating the applicant’s contract went manifestly against the interest of the service, whether from an administrative, financial or workload perspective, and breached the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging arbitrariness and breach of the principle of sound administration, insofar as, in a context where the defendant argues that it must let go some of its staff because of budget restrictions, it goes against sound administration and is arbitrary not to establish a staff reduction plan, including notably a quantification of the number of positions to cut, and the objective criteria to select them, on the basis of which decisions regarding individual staff members could be taken, before adopting decisions of termination of contracts of employment, such as the one the applicant challenges. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging arbitrariness and breach of the principle of sound administration, insofar as, in a context where the defendant argues that it must let go some of its staff because of budget restrictions, it goes against sound administration and is arbitrary not to establish a staff reduction plan, including notably a quantification of the number of positions to cut, and the objective criteria to select them, on the basis of which decisions regarding individual staff members could be taken, before adopting decisions of termination of contracts of employment, such as the one the applicant challenges.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act, insofar as the author of the contested decision, the Deputy Secretary-General of the EIB, did not have the powers to adopt it. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act, insofar as the author of the contested decision, the Deputy Secretary-General of the EIB, did not have the powers to adopt it.

---