Action brought on 7 December 2016 — Miserini Johansson v EIB

(Case T-870/16)

(2017/C 086/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Virna Miserini Johansson (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Senes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Principally:

annul the EIB’s decision of 25 January 2016;

order the EIB to restore the applicant’s full salary rights and all relevant accessories, including full pension rights and Optional Supplementary Provident Scheme (OSPS)contributions;

order the EIB to reimburse the amount corresponding to the loss of salary (provisionally evaluated in the amount of EUR 24 000 as of 31 December 2016);

order the EIB to retroactively calculate the applicant’s full pension rights and OSPS contributions, with effect from 1 February 2016;

order the EIB to pay the applicant damages for the moral prejudice suffered by her, provisionally evaluated as EUR 5 000;

order the EIB to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including legal fees and expertise fees (as applicable).

In the alternative:

order the EIB to restore the prejudice that the applicant has suffered for the loss of her full salary rights by paying her a sum of corresponding damages provisionally evaluated in the amount of EUR 24 000 as of 31 December 2016;

appoint an expert to determine the exact final amount of the item above, of the applicant’s pensions rights and OSPS contributions, with effect from 1 February 2016;

order the EIB to reimburse the medical and psychological costs related to the health issues developed due to the severe stress suffered by the applicant and which is not reimbursed by the EIB Health Insurance Scheme;

order the EIB to compensate the applicant for the moral prejudice she has suffered, evaluated at EUR 5 000, with, if required by the Court, an expert being appointed in order to determine the exact sum;

order the EIB to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including legal fees and expertise fees (as applicable).

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the EIB breached the applicant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the protection of fundamental rights (inter alia, judgment of 13 December 1979, Hauer v Rheinland-Pfalz, C-44/79, EU:C:1979:290).

The applicant argues that the EIB violated its general duty of care owed to the applicant with regard to her medical condition and the risks to which this condition exposed her. Furthermore, the applicant was not properly informed of the procedures to follow in relation to the proof of an occupational disease. The applicant maintains, in any case, that the disease from which she is suffering has been declared to be occupational in origin by medical opinion and that she has provided the EIB with all relevant documents to enable a determination to be made. No further procedural steps, on her part, are required, and the EIB should immediately provide her with the relief sought.