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 62021TN0266

Case T-266/21: Action brought on 17 May 2021 — Casanova v EIB

OJ C 263, 5.7.2021, p. 31–32 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

5.7.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/31

Action brought on 17 May 2021 — Casanova v EIB

(Case T-266/21)

(2021/C 263/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Philippe Casanova (Fort-de-France, France) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

consequently,

—

annul the decision of 12 June 2020 by which the applicant was informed that his contract had not been confirmed at the end of the probationary period and would therefore end on 30 June 2020;

—

where necessary, annul the EIB decision of 8 February 2021 rejecting the request for conciliation and the applicant’s request for administrative review submitted on 11 August 2020, thereby confirming the decision of 12 June 2020;

—

compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 24 of the Convention on Staff Representation at the European Investment Bank (EIB) and of the principle of legal certainty.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act, infringement of the principle of impartiality and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment committed during the initial probationary period and during the extension of the probationary period.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers committed by the EIB.
Top