Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 9 September 2002 by D against European Investment Bank

    (Case T-275/02)

    (Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Investment Bank was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 September 2002 by D, represented by Joëlle Choucroun, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(declare the present action admissible and well founded;

(annul the unilateral decision of the European Investment Bank dated 26 March 2002 concerning the four-month extension of the six-month trial-period agreed between the parties;

(annul the decision of the European Investment Bank dated 25 June 2002, reproduced on 28 June 2002, unilaterally terminating outside the trial period and with effect from 15 July 2002 the fixed-period employment contract with the applicant signed on 2 October 2001;

(order the European Investment Bank to pay to the applicant EUR 45 000 (forty-five thousand euros) by way of damages;

(order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case contests the extension of the probation period to be worked for the defendant, together with its unilateral termination of the applicant's employment contract at the end of that period.

In support of the arguments put forward, the applicant alleges:

(Infringement of the principle of legality, in that neither the letter engaging him nor the Staff Regulations of the Bank provide for any extension of the probation period; the bank cannot claim that there has been an amendment in that regard.

(Infringement of the principle pacta sunt servanda, in that the Bank did not exercise, within the probation period, its right of termination without requiring to give reasons and with 15 days' notice and the defendant cannot unilaterally modify the terms of the contract.

The applicant further alleges breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and breach of the principle that legitimate expectations be protected.

____________