In Case T‑536/20

67The applicant claims that the EIB should pay the costs of the present proceedings, set provisionally at EUR15000.

68However, it should be borne in mind that, in the decision ending the proceedings, the Court determines exclusively how the costs are to be allocated between the parties, without ruling on the amount of the costs. In the event of a dispute, the amount of the recoverable costs may be the subject of a separate action, governed by Article170 of the Rules of Procedure, distinct from the decision on the allocation of the costs. Thus, taxation of costs may only take place following the judgment or the order ending the proceedings (see, to that effect, judgment of 6February 2019, Karp v Parliament, T‑580/17, not published, EU:T:2019:62, paragraph100).

69The applicant’s claim that the costs of the present proceedings should be set provisionally at EUR15000 must therefore be rejected.

70The fact remains that the applicant claims that the EIB should be ordered to pay the costs.

71Under Article134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.

72Since the EIB has been largely unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)

hereby:

1.Annuls the decision of the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 26May 2020 rejecting the harassment complaint made by LU;

2.Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.Orders the EIB to pay the costs.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 2February 2022.

*Language of the case: English.

1 Confidential data omitted.