# C_2019363EN.01002201.xml

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/22

---

Action brought on 23 August 2019 — EJ v EIB

(Case T-585/19)

(2019/C 363/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: EJ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, 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 decision of 16 February 2018 limiting to 18 months the retroactive entitlement to the payment of travel expenses incurred because of the serious illness of the applicant’s daughter and the decision of 23 March 2018 limiting to 5 years the retroactive entitlement to double dependent child allowance; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 16 February 2018 limiting to 18 months the retroactive entitlement to the payment of travel expenses incurred because of the serious illness of the applicant’s daughter and the decision of 23 March 2018 limiting to 5 years the retroactive entitlement to double dependent child allowance;

| — | in so far as is necessary, annul the decision of 14 May 2019 confirming those decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as is necessary, annul the decision of 14 May 2019 confirming those decisions;

| — | order payment of compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order payment of compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered;

| — | 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 two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2.2.3 of the administrative provisions and Article 1 of the HIS’s reimbursement ceilings, and manifest error of assessment |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2.2.3 of the administrative provisions and Article 1 of the HIS’s reimbursement ceilings, and manifest error of assessment

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the principle of sound administration.
  The applicant also seeks an order requiring the defendant to pay the double dependent child allowance for the period from 1 September 2007 to 31 May 2012 and payment of travel costs incurred on account of the serious illness of the applicant’s daughter from 1 September 2007 to 18 February 2018, the amounts due to be increased by default interest at the rate of the European Central Bank plus two percentage points. Lastly, the applicant seeks compensation for the non-material damage suffered, assessed at EUR 2 000. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the principle of sound administration.

The applicant also seeks an order requiring the defendant to pay the double dependent child allowance for the period from 1 September 2007 to 31 May 2012 and payment of travel costs incurred on account of the serious illness of the applicant’s daughter from 1 September 2007 to 18 February 2018, the amounts due to be increased by default interest at the rate of the European Central Bank plus two percentage points. Lastly, the applicant seeks compensation for the non-material damage suffered, assessed at EUR 2 000.

---