Case T-241/14 P: Appeal brought on 22 April 2014 by Jean-Pierre Bodson and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2014 in Case F-83/12, Bodson and Others v EIB
Date: 2014-04-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, bonus payment, damages, indemnification, pay scale, principle of legal certainty








C_2014223EN.01001801.xml










14.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/18





Appeal brought on 22 April 2014 by Jean-Pierre Bodson and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2014 in Case F-83/12, Bodson and Others v EIB
(Case T-241/14 P)
2014/C 223/23
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); Dalila Bundy (Cosnes-et-Romain, France); Didier Dulieu (Roussy-le-Village, France); Marie-Christel Heger (Nospelt, Luxembourg); Evangelos Kourgias (Senningerberg, Luxembourg); Manuel Sutil (Luxembourg); Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg); and Henry von Blumenthal (Bergem, Luxembourg) (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellants

The appellants claim that the General Court should:






—


annul the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2014 in Case F-83/12;










—


consequently, uphold the forms of order sought by the appellants at first instance and, accordingly,






—


annul the decisions to distribute awards to the appellants pursuant to the new performance system resulting from the decision of 14 December 2010 of the Board of Directors and the decisions of 9 November 2010 and 16 November 2011 of the Management Committee, the individual award decision being contained in the April 2012 notice, brought to the attention of the persons concerned on 22 April 2012 at the earliest;










—


accordingly,






—


order the defendant to pay the difference in remuneration resulting from the decision of the Board of Directors of 14 December 2010 and the decisions of 9 November 2010 and 16 November 2011 and that paid in application of the preceding bonus system, with interest on arrears to be added to that difference in remuneration with effect from 22 April 2012 until full payment, the rate of interest being the ECB rate, increased by three percentage points;










—


order the defendant to pay damages for the loss suffered by reason of the loss of purchasing power, such loss being assessed equitably, and on a provisional basis, at 1,5 % of the monthly remuneration of each applicant;














—


if necessary, if the defendant does not produce them of its own accord, request the defendant to produce the following documents by way of measures of organisation of procedure:






—


the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the EIB of 13 December 2011;










—


the drafts drawn up by the Department of Human Resources dated 22 June 2011 (RH/P&O/2011-119), 20 October 2011 (RH/P&O/2011-74) and 25 January 2012;














—


order the defendant to pay all the costs;














—


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





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a procedural irregularity in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal refused to take the measures of organisation requested by the appellants.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the difference in character between a contractual employment relationship and an employment relationship governed by the Staff Regulations was not observed, an infringement of the fundamental conditions of the employment relationship, that the Memorandum of Understanding was not accorded the correct treatment in law, distortion of information in the file and infringement by the Tribunal of its obligation to state reasons.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of acquired rights and of legitimate expectations, and an infringement of the obligation to state reasons.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty, of non-retroactivity and of foreseeability, and an infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the obligation to state reasons.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Tribunal failed to correctly exercise its power of review as regards the manifest error of assessment and a distortion of information in the file.