CELEX: 62019TN0155
Language: en
Date: 2019-03-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-155/19: Action brought on 12 March 2019 — AP v EIF

6.5.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 155/53
            
         
      Action brought on 12 March 2019 — AP v EIF
      (Case T-155/19)
      (2019/C 155/62)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: AP (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Investment Fund
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decisions of the defendant dated 30 August 2018 and 3 October 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request dated 20 June 2018;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the benefits provided by article 33 of the Staff Regulations retroactively as of 1st April 2018 increased by late interest calculated at the level of the European Central Bank rate +2 points until full payment is received by the applicant;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to compensate the moral harm, which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono to the sum of at least 20 000 euros;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay all 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 that the illness of the applicant involved the suspension of the notice period and the application of the social security scheme. The applicant submits that the contrary would constitute a breach of the staff regulations, of the duty of care and of the principle of legitimate expectations.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the refusal to accept the withdrawal of the resignation of the applicant breaches the duty of care.