Action brought on 27 September 2021 – BZ v ECB

(Case T-631/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decisions of the Executive Board of the ECB of 16 March 2021 and 13 July 2021, since they respectively: a) reassessed the applicant’s situation and granted her compensation, ex aequo et bono, of EUR 50 000 to compensate for the harm (including all damages inflicted by the wrongdoings identified in the DG-HR letter of 12 January 2021) caused to her, and b) rejected the special appeal submitted by her on 18 May 2021 against the Executive Board decision of 16 March 2021;

order the ECB to pay the applicant:

for violation of Article 8 ECHR regarding the disrespect of the applicant’s private life in its aspects of dignity and professional integrity, compensation of EUR 200 000;

for violation of Article 8 ECHR regarding the disrespect of the applicant’s private life in its aspects of her right to health, compensation of EUR 130 000;

for use of the flawed inquiry report and the annulled ruling in Case F-43/10 by sending these documents to [confidential], moral compensation of EUR 20 000;

for income loss, the amount to be calculated following the result of the pending Case T-500/16;

for destruction of the inquiry files, moral compensation of EUR 20 000;

for the delay in her appraisal and in the Annual Salary and Bonus Review (ASBR) procedure decision for the year 2007, covering the period from 2007 to 2021, moral compensation of EUR 52 000;

for the moral and material damage resulting from the lack of appraisal and of an ASBR decision, compensation of EUR 150 000;

for the definitive loss of chance resulting from the lack of a new inquiry (moral and material damages), compensation of EUR 700 000.

order the ECB to pay its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the Executive Board decision of 16 March 2021 is vitiated by a number of errors in fact and in law and that Article 8.2.1 of the ECB Staff Rules and Article 42 of the ECB Conditions of Employment were distorted and misapplied.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 266 TFEU, including the failure to: a) provide due compensation of the damages suffered and not compensation defined by equity (notably ex aequo et bono); b) compensate the applicant duly for all disadvantages/damages, including compensation for the loss of chance caused by the fact that the ECB is unable to redo the inquiry and also according to the principle of proportionality and non-discrimination; and c) remedy the past effects of the annulled decisions.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of transparency and good administration and of Articles 41, 42 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and a violation of the principles of legal certainty and right to action.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care, staff welfare and of Articles 21 and 31 of Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the statement of reasons is not well founded.

____________