Case T-471/24: Action brought on 18 November 2024 – FC v EIF
Date: 2024-11-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, age discrimination, competition (EU), data-processing law, equal treatment, full-time employment, indemnification, professional experience, recruitment, transparency in decision-making








C_202500572EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/572


3.2.2025






Action brought on 18 November 2024 – FC v EIF


(Case T-471/24)

(C/2025/572)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: FC (represented by: G. Mayer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Fund

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the selection committee of the European Investment Fund (EIF) for the post of ‘(Senior) Writer/Storyteller – Job Opening 109991’, which was communicated to the applicant by email, rejecting the application for that post;










—


order the EIF to pay, first, an adequate compensation for the non-material damage experienced by the applicant, considering, in particular, that the EIF, inter alia, did not react to the applicant’s well-founded request for information or the applicant’s concerns with regard to lacking compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation) (1) and the requirement of transparency, thus forcing the applicant into lengthy correspondence; the minimum amount in this regard shall be EUR 10 000;










—


order the EIF to pay, second, an adequate sum as compensation for the loss of the opportunity to become a Senior Writer/Storyteller, with a permanent contract, most likely in a senior position at grade 5; and, before doing so, order the defendant to disclose all relevant internal information necessary to fully and accurately quantify the material damages suffered as a result of the unlawful exclusion from the selection process for the advertised position;










—


order the EIF to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging indirect age discrimination.










—


The applicant argues under this plea, inter alia, that, since the defendant favours job applicants of between 29 to 31 years of age, it has effectively excluded the vast majority of individuals aged between 32 and 64 years, among them the applicant, from the pool of candidates for this position. Since this exclusion lacks any legal basis, it constitutes an act of indirect age discrimination, thus infringing Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides that any discrimination based on any ground such as, among others, age shall be prohibited.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment.










—


The applicant invokes inconsistent hiring practices of the EIF in relation to the cap on professional experience, which, in the applicant’s view, appear to be misaligned with those of European Investment Bank (EIB), and result in the unequal treatment of candidates applying for positions at the same grade and salary bands.










—


By treating comparable situations differently, it is alleged by the applicant that the EIF has violated the general principle of equal treatment that the Court of Justice has consistently held generally applicable.






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/572/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)