Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62019TN0387

Case T-387/19: Action brought on 26 June 2019 — DF and DG v EIB

OJ C 288, 26.8.2019, p. 56–56 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

26.8.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/56

Action brought on 26 June 2019 — DF and DG v EIB

(Case T-387/19)

(2019/C 288/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: DF and DG (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

and accordingly;

—

annul the decisions refusing to grant DF and DG the installation allowance when they returned from external offices (decisions taken on 6 March 2018 and 28 February 2019, respectively);

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decisions of 19 March 2019 (in respect of DF) and 27 March 2019 (in respect of DG) by which the EIB considered that there was no need to initiate the conciliation procedure since their complaints were ‘manifestly unfounded’;

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decisions of 14 June 2019 confirming the refusal to grant the installation allowance;

—

order the defendant to pay the installation allowance to both of the applicants, plus default interest calculated at the European Central Bank rate plus 2 points, until full payment;

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement, as interpreted by the European Investment Bank (EIB), of Articles 5 and 17 of Annex VII to the EIB Staff Regulations, in so far as the new interpretation of the rule laid down in those provisions is not consistent with the objective it is supposed to pursue.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights, infringement of legitimate expectations, a lack of transitional arrangements, and infringement of the principle of good administration and the duty of care.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the EIB Staff Regulations.
Top