# C_2020297EN.01004201.xml

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/42

---

Action brought on 3 July 2020 — KT v EIB

(Case T-415/20)

(2020/C 297/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KT (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action, including the plea of illegality it contains, admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action, including the plea of illegality it contains, admissible and well-founded;

| — | as a result:






  — | annul the decision adopted on 24 March 2020 imposing on her, as a disciplinary penalty, summary dismissal for grave misconduct, without notice and with severance grant; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

as a result:

—

annul the decision adopted on 24 March 2020 imposing on her, as a disciplinary penalty, summary dismissal for grave misconduct, without notice and with severance grant;

| — | 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 six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, in particular infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, in particular infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a flaw due to lack of competence of the author of the act. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a flaw due to lack of competence of the author of the act.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the ‘reasonable period’ rule, in particular infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the ‘reasonable period’ rule, in particular infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality. First, the applicant raises a plea of illegality on the ground that Article 40 of the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank (EIB) does not comply with the principle of impartiality so far as objective impartiality is concerned. Secondly, she submits that the procedure put in place by the EIB infringed the principle of impartiality so far as subjective impartiality is concerned. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality. First, the applicant raises a plea of illegality on the ground that Article 40 of the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank (EIB) does not comply with the principle of impartiality so far as objective impartiality is concerned. Secondly, she submits that the procedure put in place by the EIB infringed the principle of impartiality so far as subjective impartiality is concerned.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and breach of the rules relating to the protection of personal data. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and breach of the rules relating to the protection of personal data.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

---