# C_2012319EN.01001804.xml

| 20.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/18

---

Action brought on 30 July 2012 — ZZ v EIB

(Case F-82/12)

2012/C 319/35

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Adjudication Panel’s decision dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the result of the second overall appraisal of his work for 2007.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision adopted on 15 February 2012, in so far as the Adjudication Panel:






  — | dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the 2007 staff report drawn up in 2011 following the annulment of that report as drafted in 2008 ordered by the Civil Service Tribunal by judgment of 8 March 2011, which determined Case F-59/09; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision adopted on 15 February 2012, in so far as the Adjudication Panel:

—

dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the 2007 staff report drawn up in 2011 following the annulment of that report as drafted in 2008 ordered by the Civil Service Tribunal by judgment of 8 March 2011, which determined Case F-59/09;

| — | dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal to recommend that he be promoted, following the annulment ordered by the Civil Service Tribunal by that judgment in Case F-59/09; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal to recommend that he be promoted, following the annulment ordered by the Civil Service Tribunal by that judgment in Case F-59/09;

| — | refused to conduct proceedings on the substance and, in reviewing only the issue of lawfulness, denied the applicant the right to obtain a second, effective appraisal of his work; |
| --- | --- |

—

refused to conduct proceedings on the substance and, in reviewing only the issue of lawfulness, denied the applicant the right to obtain a second, effective appraisal of his work;

| — | annul the promotion decisions of 29 April 2008 given that, in view of the appraisal made by his superiors, the EIB failed to take the applicant into consideration in the point ‘Promotions from Function E to D’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the promotion decisions of 29 April 2008 given that, in view of the appraisal made by his superiors, the EIB failed to take the applicant into consideration in the point ‘Promotions from Function E to D’;

| — | annul all the related, consequent and previous measures, including the entire staff report for 2007 and the appraisal by the applicant’s superiors in so far as it fails to propose that he be given a mark A or B+ and promotion to Function D and, if appropriate, declare unlawful, and disapply, the guidelines, at least to the extent to which they unlawfully restrict the number of employees who may receive an overall mark of A or B+; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all the related, consequent and previous measures, including the entire staff report for 2007 and the appraisal by the applicant’s superiors in so far as it fails to propose that he be given a mark A or B+ and promotion to Function D and, if appropriate, declare unlawful, and disapply, the guidelines, at least to the extent to which they unlawfully restrict the number of employees who may receive an overall mark of A or B+;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---