This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020TN0370
Case T-370/20: Action brought on 11 June 2020 — KL v EIB
Case T-370/20: Action brought on 11 June 2020 — KL v EIB
Case T-370/20: Action brought on 11 June 2020 — KL v EIB
OJ C 255, 3.8.2020, p. 33–34
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
3.8.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 255/33 |
Action brought on 11 June 2020 — KL v EIB
(Case T-370/20)
(2020/C 255/44)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: KL (represented by L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)
Defendant: European Investment Bank
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
— |
declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
Consequently,
— |
annul the EIB’s decisions of 8 February and 8 March 2019 declaring the applicant fit to work and absent without justification since 18 February 2019; |
— |
in so far as is necessary, annul the decision of the President of the EIB of 16 March 2020 confirming the findings of the Conciliation Board and, therefore, the decisions of 8 February and 8 March 2019; |
Accordingly,
— |
order the defendant to make retrospective payment of the invalidity pension in principle from 1 February 2019 onwards; |
— |
order the defendant to pay default interest on the invalidity pension payable since 1 February 2019 until such time as payment has been made in full, the default interest rate being the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank plus two percentage points; |
— |
order the EIB to pay compensation in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant; |
— |
order the EIB to pay the costs in their entirety. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1. |
First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 46-1 and 48-1 of the Staff Pension Scheme Regulations and of Article 11(1) and (3) of the administrative provisions, as well as manifest error of assessment. |
2. |
Second plea, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff. |