Appeal brought on 9 September 2023 by Vincent Thunus and Others against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 June 2023 in Case T-666/20

(Case C-561/23 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Vincent Thunus, Jaime Barragán, Alexandra Felten, Manuel Sutil, Patrick Vanhoudt (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Investment Bank; Marc D’hooge

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

set aside the order of the General Court of 30 June 2023 in Case T-666/20;

consequently, uphold the claims of the appellants at first instance and, accordingly

declare the present action, including the plea of illegality it contains, admissible and well-founded;

consequently:

annul the decision contained in the applicants’ salary slips for March 2020, a decision fixing the annual adjustment of the basic salary limited to 0.7% for the year 2020 as from 1 January 2020, and, therefore, annul similar decisions contained in subsequent salary slips;

therefore, order the defendant to pay compensation for material damage of (i) the salary balance corresponding to the application of the annual adjustment for 2020, that is an increase of 1% for the period from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020; (ii) the salary balance corresponding to the consequences of the application of the annual adjustment of 0.7% for 2020 on the amount of salaries to be paid as from January 2020; (iii) default interest on outstanding salary balances until full payment of the sums due, the rate of default interest to be applied being calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for the main refinancing operations, applicable during the period concerned, increased by 3 points;

order the defendant to pay the entirety of the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

As regards the unlawfulness of the decision of 18 July 2017: infringement of Article 20 of the Staff Regulations and Annex 1 thereto – infringement of the General Court’s obligation to state reasons – distortion of evidence.

As regards the unlawfulness of the decisions of 12 December 2019 and of 6 February 2020: infringement of Article 20 of the Staff Regulations and Annex 1 thereto – infringement of the General Court’s obligation to state reasons – distortion of evidence.

____________