Case T-744/25: Action brought on 26 October 2025 – LU v EIB
Date: 2025-10-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, administrative sanction, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, indemnification, pension scheme, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_202506402EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6402


8.12.2025






Action brought on 26 October 2025 – LU v EIB


(Case T-744/25)

(C/2025/6402)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the final disciplinary decision adopted by the EIB on 26 August 2025 summarily dismissing the applicant for grave misconduct without loss of severance grant;










—


annul the underlying disciplinary proceedings initiated by the President of the EIB against the applicant on 8 January 2021;










—


order the EIB to reinstate the applicant in his post with full rights, salary, benefits, bonuses, and career progression as if no interruption had occurred, and to compensate him for all material damages suffered from the suspension period until the date of judgment; or, alternatively, should the Court consider reinstatement not feasible, order the EIB to compensate the applicant for all material damages suffered until the date of judgment, and to recalculate and adjust his pension rights as if his service had continued uninterrupted until his natural retirement age; or, in any event, grant such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate;










—


grant compensation for the moral damage suffered by the applicant amounting to EUR 150,000 or such amount as the Court deems appropriate;










—


order the EIB to bear all the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 41 of the Charter regarding the right to good administration - unreasonable length of proceedings.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of right of defence and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - failure to provide access to material documents.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and failure to comply with Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 266 TFEU and principle accessorium sequitur principale: unlawful revival of annulled act.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging the violation of right of defence and disproportionality of the disciplinary sanction and the breach of the principle of proportionality.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of prohibition of double sanction (non bis in idem) - the de facto punitive nature of the applicant’s suspension.










7.


Seventh plea in law concerning the legal issue of institutional harassment and the invalidity of the disciplinary procedure.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6402/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)