EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020TN0695
Case T-695/20: Action brought on 18 November 2020 — OG v EIB
Case T-695/20: Action brought on 18 November 2020 — OG v EIB
Case T-695/20: Action brought on 18 November 2020 — OG v EIB
OJ C 35, 1.2.2021, p. 53–54
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
1.2.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 35/53 |
Action brought on 18 November 2020 — OG v EIB
(Case T-695/20)
(2021/C 35/71)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: OG (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)
Defendant: European Investment Bank
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
and accordingly,
|
— |
order the EIB to pay 16 months’ salary and 6 months’ severance pay, i.e. the sum of EUR 317 668 at the time of the initial claim for compensation of 23 October 2019, an amount to be updated at the time of payment; |
|
— |
order the EIB to pay compensation for non-material damage assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000; |
|
— |
where appropriate, annul the decision rejecting the claim for compensation, dated 9 March and received on 10 March 2020; |
|
— |
where appropriate, annul the decision implicitly dismissing the appeal to a higher court, taken on 8 August 2020; |
|
— |
order, by way of a measure of organisation of procedure, access to the SSTL report; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action seeking to invoke the liability of the European Investment Bank (EIB), on account of a series of events which, taken individually or collectively, reveal wrongful conduct on the part of the EIB which has caused her harm and illness, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging breaches of the duties to have regard for the welfare of officials, of sound administration and of transparency allegedly committed by the EIB and, more generally, breach of the general duty of care and diligence incumbent on every employer.
In the present case, the applicant claims that, had the EIB regularly taken the appropriate security measures in its building, the tragic suicide of a trainee would not have happened. She also claims that, had the EIB assumed its responsibilities with regard to that suicide and fulfilled its obligations of transparency and support, openness and assistance in respect of it agents and, in particular, those such as the applicant who were affected by that suicide, the applicant would not today be an agent in invalidity, in grief and whose career and recognition of her merits no longer exist in the eyes of the employer whom she has nevertheless served loyally.
The applicant argues that the facts also show that the EIB, far from behaving like a responsible and protective employer, engaged in a policy of discrediting and devaluing the applicant following the trainee’s suicide, to the point of her physical and mental breakdown. After 30 years of an exemplary career, the applicant feels she has been treated as a mediocre and dishonest employee.