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 62014TN0240

Case T-240/14 P: Appeal brought on 22 April 2014 by Jean-Pierre Bodson and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2014 in Case F-73/12, Bodson and Others v EIB

OJ C 223, 14.7.2014, p. 17–18 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

14.7.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/17

Appeal brought on 22 April 2014 by Jean-Pierre Bodson and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2014 in Case F-73/12, Bodson and Others v EIB

(Case T-240/14 P)

2014/C 223/22

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); Dalila Bundy (Cosnes-et-Romain, France); Didier Dulieu (Roussy-le-Village, France); Marie-Christel Heger (Nospelt, Luxembourg); Evangelos Kourgias (Senningerberg, Luxembourg); Manuel Sutil (Luxembourg); Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg); and Henry von Blumenthal (Bergem, Luxembourg) (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellants

The appellants claim that the General Court should:

—

annul the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2014 in Case F-73/12;

—

consequently, uphold the forms of order sought by the appellants at first instance and, accordingly,

—

annul the decisions to apply to the applicants the decision of the EIB’s Board of Directors of 13 December 2011 setting a salary progression capped at 2,8 % and the decision of the EIB’s Management Committee of 14 February 2012 establishing a merit grid entailing the loss of 1 % of salary, decisions that are contained in the salary slips of April 2012, and annul to the same extent all the decisions contained in subsequent salary slips;

—

accordingly,

—

order the defendant to pay the difference between the remuneration resulting from the aforementioned decisions of the EIB’s Board of Directors of 13 December 2011 and of the EIB’s Management Committee of 14 February 2012 and that paid in application of the preceding salary scheme, with interest on arrears to be added to that difference in remuneration with effect from 12 April 2012 and then on the 12th day of every month until full payment, the rate of interest being the ECB rate, increased by three percentage points;

—

order the defendant to pay damages for the loss suffered by reason of the loss of purchasing power, such loss being assessed equitably, and on a provisional basis, at 1,5 % of the monthly remuneration of each applicant;

—

order the EIB to pay all the costs;

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on four pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the difference in character between a contractual employment relationship and an employment relationship governed by the Staff Regulations was not observed, an infringement of the fundamental conditions of the employment relationship and that the Memorandum of Understanding was not accorded the correct treatment in law.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a contradiction in the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal and distortion of the information in the file.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty, of non-retroactivity and of foreseeability, and distortion of the information in the file.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Tribunal failed to correctly exercise its power of review as regards the manifest error of assessment and infringement of the obligation to state reasons.
Top