Case T-454/24: Action brought on 27 August 2024 – GB v EIB
Date: 2024-08-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, data protection, disciplinary proceedings, harassment at work, personal data, principle of proportionality, protection of communications, psychological harassment, right to an effective remedy, right to justice








C_202406265EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6265


28.10.2024






Action brought on 27 August 2024 – GB v EIB


(Case T-454/24)

(C/2024/6265)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: GB (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare illegal the defendant’s obtention and processing of the applicant’s personal data as extracts of some of his private Whatsapp messages exchanged with a colleague and processed in the inquiries leading to the contested decisions;










—


annul the EIB’s President’s final decision, dated 17 May 2024, endorsing the conclusions of the Final Report of the EIB Dignity at Work Panel;










—


annul the EIB’s decision to initiate a formal disciplinary procedure against the applicant as notified by the DG Human Resources on 1 August 2024;










—


grant compensation for the material damage suffered by the applicant amounting to EUR 200 000, provisionally calculated amount;










—


grant compensation for the moral damage suffered by the applicant amounting to EUR 150 000;










—


grant compensation for the legal fees incurred by the applicant for this application to EUR 35 000 (including VAT).





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 illegality of the processing of the applicant’s personal data and the violation of the applicant’s rights to respect for his private life, private communication and correspondence, considering:






—


the illegal obtaining of his personal data and private correspondence;










—


the illegal processing of his personal data and private correspondence; and










—


the illegal retention of his data.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of the Panel’s final report and the EIB’s president’s final decision following the inadmissibility of the 2021 whistleblowing complaint and the defendant’s wrongful actions and/or omissions relating to the improper initiation, continuation and conduct of the second administrative inquiry. Indeed DG Human Resources failed to assess the conditions of admissibility of the Whistleblowing Complaint and wrongfully initiated the ex officio Dignity at Work procedure.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the illegality of the EIB’s president’s final decision following the conflict of interest and the improper conduct of the first inquiry and demotion in breach of the applicant’s rights of defence, right to good administration and the principle of proportionality, considering;






—


the failure to conduct the proceedings in compliance with the principle of impartiality and independence in breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial; and










—


the failure to conduct the proceedings in compliance with the applicant’s rights of defence and in compliance with the principle of good administration and proportionality.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging the illegality of the Panel’s final report and the EIB’s president’s final decision following the improper conduct of the second administrative inquiry in breach of the applicant’s rights of defence, right to good administration and the principle of proportionality, considering:






—


the failure to conduct the proceedings in compliance with the principles of good administration and of proportionality;










—


the failure to conduct the proceedings in compliance with the principles of impartiality and of independence in breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial; and










—


a conflict of interest of DG Human Resources.














5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging the illegality of the EIB’s president’s final decision insofar as the moral harassment alleged by the defendant was not established and the ne bis in idem principle was not respected, considering:






—


the unlawful assessment of the facts in the light of the definition of psychological harassment; and










—


the unlawful compilation of disciplinary sanctions against the applicant, resulting in institutional harassment.














6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging the liability of the defendant for damages suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decisions and related violations of his fundamental rights.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6265/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)