Case T-624/25: Action brought on 15 September 2025 – LP v EIB
Date: 2025-09-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, Luxembourg, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, expatriate worker, interest, pay, principle of legal certainty, staff regulations (EU)








C_202505603EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5603


27.10.2025






Action brought on 15 September 2025 – LP v EIB


(Case T-624/25)

(C/2025/5603)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: LP (represented by: L. Levi and P. Baudoux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision embodied in the applicant’s October salary slip which was notified on 14 October 2024, revising the percentage of the expatriation allowance that had been granted to him;










—


if need be, annul the 5 June 2025 decision rejecting the applicant’s request for an administrative review dated 5 December 2024;










—


order the defendant to pay the difference between the amounts the applicant should have received in respect of the expatriation allowance at the full rate (16 %) and the amount of the expatriation allowance at the reduced rate (4 %) that the applicant received, increased by late interest, from the date of delivery of the judgment, calculated at the level of the European Central Bank (ECB) rate plus two points, until the date of payment in full by the EIB;










—


order the defendant to pay all 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 a breach of Article 2.1.2 of the Staff Rules and the EIB’s consistent internal practice, a breach of the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations and the acquired rights.










—


For many years, the EIB interpreted Article 2.1.2 of the Staff Rules as enabling the staff members to benefit from a re-assessment of their expatriation allowance further to their assignment to an external office when transferred back at the EIB’s headquarters in Luxembourg.










—


However, during the applicant’s assignment to an external office, the EIB decided to change this interpretation and practice and considered that upon return to the headquarters, the expatriation allowance granted to the staff member prior his/her assignment shall be reinstated. The applicant specifically decided to opt out to the new provision.










—


Due to the consistent practice and interpretation of Article 2.1.2 of the Staff Rules, given that the applicant decided to opt out of the new provision, and considering that the letter concerning his reintegration at the EIB in Luxembourg specifically indicated that the former rules (before August 2023 reform) applied to his situation, reinforced the applicant’s legitimate expectations to benefit from the 16 % expatriation allowance.










2.


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










—


In the disputed decisions, the EIB infringes the principle of equal treatment because despite its consistent practice followed in the same factual and legal situation in respect of other staff members (who benefited from the 16 % expatriation allowance upon their reintegration), the EIB did not apply this practice to the applicant.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5603/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)