# C_2022244EN.01001502.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/15

---

Appeal brought on 3 March 2022 by MG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-573/20, MG v European Investment Bank

(Case C-173/22 P)

(2022/C 244/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: MG (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare the appeal admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 in Case T-573/20; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 in Case T-573/20;

| — | In consequence thereof, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance and, accordingly:






  — | Annul the EIB decision of 11 October 2018 by which the appellant was denied family allowances (including inter alia day care and CPE costs unduly deducted by the EIB from the appellant’s salary until November 2019) and derived financial rights (including inter alia tax reliefs and reimbursement of the medical expenses of the appellant’s dependent children); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

In consequence thereof, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance and, accordingly:

—

Annul the EIB decision of 11 October 2018 by which the appellant was denied family allowances (including inter alia day care and CPE costs unduly deducted by the EIB from the appellant’s salary until November 2019) and derived financial rights (including inter alia tax reliefs and reimbursement of the medical expenses of the appellant’s dependent children);

| — | If necessary, annul the letter/decision of 7 January 2019 rejecting all of the appellant’s requests; |
| --- | --- |

—

If necessary, annul the letter/decision of 7 January 2019 rejecting all of the appellant’s requests;

| — | If necessary, annul the EIB decision dated 30 July 2020 noting the absence of conciliation and confirming the decision of 11 October 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

If necessary, annul the EIB decision dated 30 July 2020 noting the absence of conciliation and confirming the decision of 11 October 2018;

| — | Provide compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered by the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Provide compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered by the appellant.

| — | Order the respondent to pay the entire costs of both proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the respondent to pay the entire costs of both proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant puts forward the following grounds of appeal:

| — | The judgment under appeal misconstrued the concept of the right to a fair hearing; |
| --- | --- |

—

The judgment under appeal misconstrued the concept of the right to a fair hearing;

| — | The judgment under appeal infringed the applicable regulatory framework relating to the obligation to state reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

The judgment under appeal infringed the applicable regulatory framework relating to the obligation to state reasons;

| — | The judgment under appeal distorted the file and misconstrued the concept of a manifest error of assessment. It also infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality by rejecting the plea of illegality raised in respect of the administrative provisions relating to family allowances; |
| --- | --- |

—

The judgment under appeal distorted the file and misconstrued the concept of a manifest error of assessment. It also infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality by rejecting the plea of illegality raised in respect of the administrative provisions relating to family allowances;

| — | The judgment under appeal infringed the applicable legislative framework (Article 3(4) of Regulation No 260/68 (1)); |
| --- | --- |

—

The judgment under appeal infringed the applicable legislative framework (Article 3(4) of Regulation No 260/68 (1));

| — | The judgment under appeal distorted the file in rejecting the fifth plea in law, infringed Article 85 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and erred in its classification of the facts. The General Court did not respond to all of the complaints raised and failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

—

The judgment under appeal distorted the file in rejecting the fifth plea in law, infringed Article 85 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and erred in its classification of the facts. The General Court did not respond to all of the complaints raised and failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons.

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC, Euratom ECSC) No 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the conditions and the procedure for applying the tax for the benefit of the European Communities (OJ 1968 L 56, p. 8).

---