CELEX: 62020TN0299
Language: en
Date: 2020-05-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-299/20: Action brought on 20 May 2020 — KF v EIB

10.8.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 262/29
            
         
      Action brought on 20 May 2020 — KF v EIB
      (Case T-299/20)
      (2020/C 262/40)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: KF (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Investment Bank
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of the President of the EIB dated 27 January 2020 and communicated to the applicant by email on 18 February 2020, by which the applicant was informed that her complaint following the Dignity at Work Procedure, was rejected;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  grant compensation for the material prejudice suffered;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  grant compensation for the moral prejudice suffered; and
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay all the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to state reasons.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is manifestly illegal insofar as it endorses the conclusions of the Panel which substituted its own assessment to that of the Appointing authority.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of appreciation, wrong interpretation by the Panel of the legal concept of harassment and violation of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of good administration and duty of care.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  The applicant also considers that the illegalities set out in the appeal amount to faults committed by the defendant. The applicant therefore seeks compensation for the material and moral damage arising from the contested decisions.