CELEX: 62015TN0010
Language: en
Date: 2015-01-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-10/15 P: Appeal brought on 11 January 2015 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-52/11 De Nicola v EIB

2.3.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 73/48
            
         
      Appeal brought on 11 January 2015 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-52/11 De Nicola v EIB
      (Case T-10/15 P)
      (2015/C 073/60)
      Language of the case: Italian
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: C. De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by L. Isola, lawyer)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank
      
         Form of order sought by the appellant
      
      The appellant claims that the Court should: reversing the judgment under appeal in part, set aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part, along with paragraphs 5, 7, 14, 16 to 21, 24 to 27, 29, 32, 35 to 37, 39 to 43, 46 to 55, 57 to 59, 62 to 66, 68, 69, 73, 74, 76, 77, 87 to 91, 93, 95 to 100, 103, 106, 107, 109 to 112, 117, 120, 124, 142, 144, 145, 148 to 153, 161 to 170, 175 to 182 and 184 to 193 of that judgment; refer the case to a different Chamber, sitting in a different formation, of the Civil Service Tribunal so that, following completion of the requested medical report, a fresh decision may be made regarding the paragraphs set aside; make any measure of enquiry, direct and/or otherwise, which may be necessary with regard to the EIB’s defence and the production of any other documents held to be useful for refuting the arguments raised therein; order the EIB to pay the costs.
      
         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
      
      The appellant raises the following grounds in support of his appeal:
      
                  1.
               
               
                  The contested measures contain no statement of reasons.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Regarding the annulment of the measures related to the Civil Service Tribunal’s decision and of the measures used by the Committee of Inquiry, the appellant claims that that decision is inadmissible, given that the application specifically concerned all the unnecessary measures used by the Committee of Inquiry.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Regarding the request for a declaration of mobbing, the appellant contests the Civil Service Tribunal’s decision on the ground of specious reasoning, in so far as the declaration that a breach of contract occurred to his detriment is certainly not an injunction issued against the EIB; nor is it even a declaration of principle.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Regarding the request for an order to cease mobbing, the appellant asserts that the alleged prohibition on injunctions cannot be absolute, but must necessarily be lifted in the event of conduct which interferes with human dignity and fundamental rights.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Regarding the request for compensation for the harm resulting from mobbing, the appellant emphasises the fact that the Civil Service Tribunal revokes his submissions to the Committee of Inquiry and observes that the EIB is not required to do anything, because there is no ruling giving an order to that effect and, since the Committee’s decision is not mandatory, it is not binding; nor is it even a procedural requirement.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Regarding the request for compensation for the harms considered per se, the appellant asserts that the Civil Service Tribunal errs in criticising him for not having specified any error of law, and contests the payment of and reasons for awarding EUR 3 000 by way of compensation.