Case T-311/21: Action brought on 1 June 2021 — SV v EIB
Date: 2021-06-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, promotion, rights of the defence, staff assessment








C_2021329EN.01003001.xml










16.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/30






Action brought on 1 June 2021 — SV v EIB
(Case T-311/21)
(2021/C 329/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: SV (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the applicant’s 2019 appraisal report;










—


annul the General Counsel’s decision of 26 June 2020 confirming the 2019 appraisal report in the context of the Staff-DG review as well as DG Personnel’s decision of 22 February 2021 rejecting the applicant’s request for administrative review;










—


compensate the applicant for his material prejudice as described in this application;










—


compensate the applicant for his non-material prejudice assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 5 000;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging the absence of full review of the appraisal — Violation of the EIB Implementing Rules.






—


The General Counsel, the applicant argues, did not perform a full review of the performance appraisal, as required by the EIB Implementing Rules, but limited the assessment to a marginal review, limited to finding whether the report was tainted by a manifest error of assessment. In the same vein, it is argued that DG Personnel also failed to perform a full review of the performance appraisal, contrary to the requirements of the EIB Implementing Rules.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging an illegal assessment of the absolute performance rating of the applicant’s objectives and competencies — Violation of the Performance Management (PM) guidelines.






—


The applicant’s manager’s absolute evaluation of objectives and competencies violates the PM guidelines insofar as it is based on a relative assessment across the Division, the Department and the Directorate instead of an assessment of the applicant’s absolute achievements and demonstration of competencies. Such an erroneous review was then endorsed and applied by the General Counsel and DG Personnel, making their decision illegal as well.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to provide reasons and of section 3.4 of the PM guidelines.






—


It is argued that the defendant failed properly to motivate the appraisal report as this report does not document the discussion which took place between the applicant and his manager and as the reasons provided are insufficient in order to understand the lower ratings in comparison to the previous year.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and the absence of fair, objective and comprehensive assessment of the applicant’s absolute performance — Violation of the duty of good administration and of the duty of care — Violation of the PM guidelines.






—


The applicant considers that the assessment performed by his manager, endorsed by the General Counsel and DG Personnel, failed to duly take all factors into account and is tainted by manifest errors.














5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to provide reasons and manifest error of appraisal in relation to the managerial review and, in particular, the absence of promotion to D-level function.






—


The applicant, he argues, fully met all criteria for a promotion, in particular as he has performed well in his current role, has the ability and potential to perform at a higher level as confirmed to him on many occasions by his manager and has demonstrated motivation to work at a higher level, especially in consideration of the fact that he has continuously exercised corresponding higher level responsibilities. The defendant, it is said, has failed to motivate its decision not to promote the applicant. Such motivation can be found neither in the General Counsel’s decision nor in DG Personnel’s decision.














6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of the right to be heard.






—


The 2019 performance results do not reflect one-on-one performance discussion and came as a big surprise.