Background to the dispute
1The applicant, LU, took up his duties at the European Investment Bank (EIB) on 16October 2009 as a [confidential](1) in the [confidential] Division.
2On 16June 2011, he was assigned to the [confidential] Directorate, which includes the [confidential] Directorate.
3As a [confidential] in the [confidential] Directorate (the director of which was A), the applicant had B (Head of the [confidential] Division) as his direct supervisor until 15April 2018, at which point B, while remaining a member of the [confidential], was replaced by C.
4On 25May 2016, the Appeals Committee of the EIB upheld the appeal lodged by the applicant contesting the refusal to promote him in his appraisal for 2014.
5On 9October 2017, the applicant lodged his first complaint with the EIB’s Dignity at Work Panel (‘the Investigation Panel’) relating to alleged instances of harassment of the applicant by his direct supervisor, B.
6On 26January 2018, the Investigation Panel finalised its report.
7By letter of 31January 2018, the President of the EIB notified the applicant that his complaint of psychological harassment had been rejected, although the director took note of the Investigation Panel’s recommendation addressed to the personnel directorate of the EIB that it was important to ensure that B’s successor was not influenced negatively against the applicant on account of the investigation procedure provided for by the EIB’s Dignity at Work Policy that the applicant had initiated in 2017.
8On 22May 2018, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Appeals Committee of the EIB contesting the overall appraisal of his performance in 2017, which had been sent to him on 22March 2018. That committee issued its decision on 21October 2019.
9On 26July 2018, the Office of the Chief Compliance Officer of the EIB decided to open a formal administrative inquiry against the applicant relating to illegal recordings of professional conversations, threatening behaviour and insubordination towards his supervisors, and false claims regarding his language knowledge. That inquiry led to the submission of a final report on 12June 2019.
10By email of 29August 2018, the applicant lodged a second complaint with the Investigation Panel under the investigation procedure provided for by the EIB’s Dignity at Work Policy. That complaint was formalised by the filing of a memorandum on 18September 2018.
11In that new complaint, the applicant informed the EIB’s Director-General for Personnel that he wished to avail himself of that procedure in respect of events that had occurred from January 2018 onwards.
12That complaint was made against the applicant’s former direct supervisor and former head of the [confidential] Division to which he belonged, B, against the director of [confidential], A, and against the applicant’s new direct supervisor, C.
13The acts he complained of consisted, inter alia and in essence, in the setting of unachievable work objectives, the removal of projects from his portfolio with no objective justification, the insertion of defamatory assessments in his staff report, unjustified and personal criticism in front of his colleagues in respect of incidents for which he was not responsible, unjustified micromanagement by his supervisors– C in particular– such as to slow him down and interfere in his private life and, lastly, the setting of unnecessary tasks by his supervisors.
14By email of 9October 2018, the applicant submitted an additional list of acts, which he attributed to his supervisor and claimed constituted harassment, to the EIB’s Director-General for Personnel.
15After various issues arose, meaning that the investigation had to be put on hold on more than one occasion, and after the applicant objected to one of the persons making up the Investigation Panel as originally constituted, the EIB appointed, on 8October 2019, a new member of that panel to replace that person.
16On 22November 2019, the Investigation Panel received a second addendum to the applicant’s memorandum.
17On 14January 2020, the Investigation Panel heard the applicant and four witnesses.
18On 26January 2020, the Investigation Panel heard the three persons in respect of whom the complaint had been made by the applicant.
19On 30March 2020, the Investigation Panel’s draft report (‘the draft report’) was sent to the applicant and to the three persons in respect of whom the complaint had been made. On 21April 2020, the applicant submitted his comments on that draft and sent it to the Investigation Panel.
20The final report of the Investigation Panel (‘the Investigation Panel’s report’) was drawn up on 13May 2020. It states that there is no evidence of harassment, finds the applicant’s second complaint to be malicious and abusive, and recommends that a disciplinary procedure be initiated against him.
21On 26May 2020, the President of the EIB sent the applicant the Investigation Panel’s report together with his decision to follow the recommendation of that panel and reject the applicant’s complaint (‘the contested decision’).
22On 8January 2021, the EIB notified the applicant that it was opening a disciplinary procedure against him on the basis of the facts set out in the final report of the Office of the Chief Compliance Officer and in the contested decision and that it was suspending him from his duties for the duration of that procedure.