Appeal brought on 12 February 2021 by Vincent Thunus, Jaime Barragán, Marc D’hooge, Alexandra Felten, Christophe Nègre, Patrick Vanhoudt against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 December 2020 in Case T-247/19, Thunus and Others v EIB

(Case C-90/21 P)

(2021/C 228/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Vincent Thunus, Jaime Barragán, Marc D’hooge, Alexandra Felten, Christophe Nègre, Patrick Vanhoudt (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

—	Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2020 in Case T-247/19;

—

Consequently, uphold the appellants’ claims at first instance and, accordingly:

—	Annul the decision contained in the appellants’ payslips for the month of February 2018, a decision fixing the annual adjustment of the basic salary limited to 0,7 % for the year 2018, and, therefore, annul the similar decisions contained in the subsequent payslips;

—

Order the defendant to pay compensation for material damage (i) for the outstanding salary corresponding to the application of the annual adjustment for 2018, that is, an increase of 1,4 % for the period from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018; (ii) for the outstanding salary corresponding to the consequences of applying the annual adjustment of 0,7 % for 2018 on the amount of the salaries which will be paid from January 2018; (iii) for default interest on outstanding salaries due until full payment of the amounts due, the rate of default interest to be applied having to be calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable during the relevant period, plus three percentage points;

—	Order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

1.	Infringement of the right of consultation of the College of staff representatives — Distortion of the file.

2.	Infringement of the obligation to state reasons — Distortion of the file — Infringement by the court of its obligation to state reasons.

3.	Infringement of the duty of care and of the principle of proportionality.