Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2022:801
Date: 2022-12-14
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - unfounded

Action brought on 11 August 2021 – Vanhoudt v EIB (Case T-490/21) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers) Defendant: European Investment Bank Form of order sought The applicant claims that the General Court should: declare the present action admissible and well founded; accordingly, annul the decision of 16 December 2020 to the extent that it dismisses the applicant’s application for the position of Head of Office of the EIB Vice-President and the decision to nominate [confidential]1 to the position concerned; annul, where appropriate, the decision of 17 May 2021, communicated to the applicant on 18 May 2021, refusing the applicant’s requests for administrative review of 18 December 2020 and 17 March 2021; order the EIB to compensate the applicant’s non-material damage, which is assessed, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 4 000; order the EIB to pay all the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of his action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law. 1. First plea, alleging procedural irregularities and breach of the guidelines on internal mobility and promotion. The applicant submits in that regard, inter alia, that he was never informed of the selection criteria or of the composition of the selection board. 2. Second plea, alleging violation of the vacancy notice and manifest errors of assessment. In support of this plea, the applicant submits that the candidate selected at the end of the selection procedure manifestly did not meet the criteria set. 3. Third plea, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons. 4. Fourth plea, alleging that the guidelines and the vacancy notice, in combination or separately, are unlawful in that they violate the principles of legal certainty, transparency and good administration. ____________ 1 Confidential data redacted.