CELEX: 62022TN0134
Language: en
Date: 2022-03-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-134/22: Action brought on 9 March 2022 — OO v EIB

10.5.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 191/34
            
         
      Action brought on 9 March 2022 — OO v EIB
      (Case T-134/22)
      (2022/C 191/44)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: OO (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision rejecting the complaint of 6 December 2021, notified to the applicant on that date (ARES CS-PERS/S&G/ER1 W2021-00710/CO/ps);
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of 27 February 2012 (ref: RH/OPR/2012-0251), which was never notified to the applicant;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of 20 May 2021 (CS-PERS/HROPS/BAP/2021-0360), notified to the applicant’s adviser on 8 June 2021 together with the communication of 27 February 2012;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons for the contested decisions, infringement of Article 31 of the EIB’s Rules of Procedure and Articles 6 and 11 of Protocol No 5 on the Statute of the EIB, and lack of a legal basis, and raising a plea of illegality, under Article 277 TFEU, in respect of point 2.1.1 of the administrative provisions.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions governing ratione temporis the secondment of EIB staff, unilateral amendment of the contract contrary to the general rules on the equality of the parties to a contractual relationship and breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.