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 62020TN0370

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.
Top