Case T-761/25: Action brought on 3 November 2025 – WM v EIB
Date: 2025-11-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, abuse of power, cruel and degrading treatment, discrimination based on disability, equal treatment, harassment at work, indemnification, legality, rights of the defence, worker with disabilities








C_202506521EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6521


15.12.2025






Action brought on 3 November 2025 – WM v EIB


(Case T-761/25)

(C/2025/6521)
Language of the case: English

Parties


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

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


grant compensation for the moral damage suffered by the applicant;










—


defer compensation for the material damage suffered by the applicant;










—


in the alternative, annul Decision of the EIB dated 22 August 2025 rejecting the applicant’s complaint, by which the Bank refused to carry out an independent investigation and to recognise the applicant’s legitimate grievances, as well as to assess their cumulative effect as amounting to discrimination, victimisation and harassment, inter alia on grounds of the applicant’s disability, thereby consolidating a pattern of degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;










—


grant compensation for the legal fees incurred by the applicant;










—


order the EIB to bear all costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First group of pleas in law, related to the causes of external illegality of the disputed decision, intended to penalise the circumstances in which the contested act was taken, regardless of its content.






—


First plea in law: lack of competence of the author of the challenged decision: violation of Article 22.1. of the Dignity at Work Policy;










—


Second plea in law: conflict of interest and breach of the right of protection of personal data;










—


Third plea in law: wrong burden of proof (i.e. breach of procedural rights);










—


Forth plea in law: breach of the right to be heard in the light of Article 41 of the EU Charter;










—


Fifth plea in law: misuse of powers and abuse of authority, amounting to misconduct in public office.














2.


Second group of pleas in law, alleging illegality of the decision in breach of the applicant’s rights of defence, right to good administration, the defendant’s duty of care towards the applicant, the principle of non-discrimination, the right to human dignity, and the prohibition from degrading treatment.






—


First plea in law: improper and unsafe working conditions: manifest errors of assessment and failure to comply with Article 31 of the EU Charter;










—


Second plea in law: the Bank’s lack of a dedicated procedure for the recognition of a disability;










—


Third plea in law: the Bank’s denial of reasonable accommodations and disregard for the applicant’s welfare;










—


Fourth plea in law: the Bank’s deliberate mismanagement and systematic obstruction of the applicant’s complaints concerning disability discrimination;










—


Fifth plea in law: disability discrimination and victimisation concerning the applicant’s contract of employment.














3.


Lastly, the applicant alleges the liability of the defendant for damages suffered as a result of the disputed decision and related violation of his fundamental rights.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6521/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)