Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62024TN0640

Case T-640/24: Action brought on 9 December 2024 – FZ v EIB

OJ C, C/2025/1112, 24.2.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1112/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1112/oj

European flag

Official Journal
of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2025/1112

24.2.2025

Action brought on 9 December 2024 – FZ v EIB

(Case T-640/24)

(C/2025/1112)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

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 2 September 2024, endorsing the conclusions of the Final Report of the EIB Dignity at Work Panel;

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 926 418 for material damage;

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 50 000 for moral damage;

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 15 000 (excluding VAT) for Attorney at law fees for this procedure before the General Court;

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 20 000 (excluding VAT) for Attorney at law fees for his defence in the Dignity at work procedure.

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 the illegality of the EIB president’s final decision insofar as the moral harassment alleged by the complainant was deemed not to have been established, considering that:

—

throughout his time at the EIB, the applicant considers that the reported cases of verbal abuse, sexual harassment and physical intimidation created a toxic work environment and that such behaviour of his line manager must be considered as harassment as per EIB Dignity at work policy rules;

—

despite being aware of such repeated behaviours and statements, the President of the EIB wrongly failed to conclude that there was harassment.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the liability of the defendant for damages suffered by the applicant as a result of the disputed decision.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1112/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

Top