# C_2023189EN.01001402.xml

| 30.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/14

---

Appeal brought on 22 February 2023 by Patrick Vanhoudt against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2022 in Case T-490/21, Vanhoudt v EIB

(Case C-106/23 P)

(2023/C 189/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Patrick Vanhoudt (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, avocates)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2022 in Case T-490/21; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2022 in Case T-490/21;

| — | consequently, grant the appellant the form of order sought at first instance and, accordingly






  — | annul the decision of 16 December 2020 to the extent that it dismisses the appellant’s application for the position of Head of Office of the EIB Vice-President and the decision to appoint Mr L to the position concerned; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

consequently, grant the appellant the form of order sought at first instance and, accordingly

—

annul the decision of 16 December 2020 to the extent that it dismisses the appellant’s application for the position of Head of Office of the EIB Vice-President and the decision to appoint Mr L to the position concerned;

| — | annul, where appropriate, the decision of 17 May 2021, communicated to the appellant on 18 May 2021, refusing the appellant’s requests for administrative review of 18 December 2020 and 17 March 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, where appropriate, the decision of 17 May 2021, communicated to the appellant on 18 May 2021, refusing the appellant’s requests for administrative review of 18 December 2020 and 17 March 2021;

| — | order the EIB to compensate the appellant’s non-material damage, which is assessed, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 4 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to compensate the appellant’s non-material damage, which is assessed, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 4 000;

| — | order the EIB to pay all the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to pay all the costs;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs of both proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs of both proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on the following grounds:

| 1. | Breach of the Practice Directions and of the procedure — Breach of the court’s duty to state reasons — Error in the legal qualification of the vacancy notice –Breach of the principle of non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Breach of the Practice Directions and of the procedure — Breach of the court’s duty to state reasons — Error in the legal qualification of the vacancy notice –Breach of the principle of non-discrimination.

| 2. | Breach of the principle of legal certainty, transparency and non-discrimination — Breach of the court’s duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Breach of the principle of legal certainty, transparency and non-discrimination — Breach of the court’s duty to state reasons.

---