# C_2014212EN.01004401.xml

| 7.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/44 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 1 February 2014 — ZZ v EIB

(Case F-9/14)

2014/C 212/56

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Isola and G. Isola, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2012 in so far as it does not classify his performance as ‘exceptional’ or ‘very good’ and does not propose that he be promoted to Function D and in so far as it sets his objectives for 2013, annulment of the guidelines for that report and, lastly, an order that the EIB pay compensation for the material and non-material damage that the applicant claims he has sustained.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul:
—
the decision adopted on 18 December 2012 by the Appeals Committee, referring all documents back to that body and establishing the criteria which must be used by the Committee when adopting a new decision; —
the guidelines established by the Human Resources division in ‘Note to Staff No 722 PERSONNEL/S&D/D&P/2012-198’ of 5 December 2012 and the corresponding ‘Guidelines to the 2012 annual staff appraisal exercise’, including the section in which they provide that the final evaluation must be summarised in a certain way but do not identify the criteria which must be used by the appraiser; | — | the decision adopted on 18 December 2012 by the Appeals Committee, referring all documents back to that body and establishing the criteria which must be used by the Committee when adopting a new decision; | — | the guidelines established by the Human Resources division in ‘Note to Staff No 722 PERSONNEL/S&D/D&P/2012-198’ of 5 December 2012 and the corresponding ‘Guidelines to the 2012 annual staff appraisal exercise’, including the section in which they provide that the final evaluation must be summarised in a certain way but do not identify the criteria which must be used by the appraiser; |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the decision adopted on 18 December 2012 by the Appeals Committee, referring all documents back to that body and establishing the criteria which must be used by the Committee when adopting a new decision; | | | | |
| — | the guidelines established by the Human Resources division in ‘Note to Staff No 722 PERSONNEL/S&D/D&P/2012-198’ of 5 December 2012 and the corresponding ‘Guidelines to the 2012 annual staff appraisal exercise’, including the section in which they provide that the final evaluation must be summarised in a certain way but do not identify the criteria which must be used by the appraiser; | | | | |

| — | In the alternative, annul:
—
the whole of the staff report for 2012, including the part containing the appraisal, the part in which performance is not summarised as ‘exceptional’ or ‘very good’ and in which no proposal is made to promote the applicant to Function D and, lastly, the part in which objectives are set for 2013; —
all connected, consequent and prior measures, including the promotions referred to in the note from the Director of Human Resources of May 2012 entitled ‘2011 staff appraisal exercise, award of promotions and titles’; | — | the whole of the staff report for 2012, including the part containing the appraisal, the part in which performance is not summarised as ‘exceptional’ or ‘very good’ and in which no proposal is made to promote the applicant to Function D and, lastly, the part in which objectives are set for 2013; | — | all connected, consequent and prior measures, including the promotions referred to in the note from the Director of Human Resources of May 2012 entitled ‘2011 staff appraisal exercise, award of promotions and titles’; |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the whole of the staff report for 2012, including the part containing the appraisal, the part in which performance is not summarised as ‘exceptional’ or ‘very good’ and in which no proposal is made to promote the applicant to Function D and, lastly, the part in which objectives are set for 2013; | | | | |
| — | all connected, consequent and prior measures, including the promotions referred to in the note from the Director of Human Resources of May 2012 entitled ‘2011 staff appraisal exercise, award of promotions and titles’; | | | | |

| — | In any event, order the EIB to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage (within the period specified), and to pay the costs of the proceedings together with interest and monetary revaluation of those costs and of the sums awarded. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

---