CELEX: C2001/227/57
Language: en
Date: 2001-08-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-120/01: Action brought on 4 June 2001 by Carlo De Nicola against the European Investment Bank

C 227/30               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11.8.2001
Action brought on 4 June 2001 by Carlo De Nicola against                   Lastly, the applicant also pleads that Article 39 of the Staff
                 the European Investment Bank                              Regulations is illegal, inasmuch as it allows a person to be
                                                                           relieved of his duties, and even provides for payment of that
                         (Case T-120/01)                                   person’s salary to be stopped, for up to three months, without
                                                                           requiring the facts in issue to be communicated forthwith and
                                                                           at the same time.
                         (2001/C 227/57)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001, p. 20.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 4 June 2001 by Carlo De Nicola, represented by Luigi Isola,
avvocato.
                                                                           Action brought on 31 May 2001 by Laurent Piau against
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                         Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the letter of 6 March 2001 bearing reference
      RH/Ress/2001-483/TP and its enclosure;                                                        (Case T-121/01)
—     annul the letter of 22 May 2001;
                                                                                                    (2001/C 227/58)
—     annul Article 39 of the Staff Regulations;
—     annul all acts connected with or ensuing from the                                       (Language of the case: French)
      contested measures, or on which those measures are
      based;
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     rule and declare that the Code of Conduct is not applicable          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      to the applicant;                                                    European Communities on 31 May 2001 by Laurent Piau,
                                                                           residing in Nantes, France, represented by Marguerite Faucon-
—     order the European Investment Bank to pay compen-                    net and Pierre Thielen, Avocats, with an address for service in
      sation for the physical, material and non-material damage            Luxembourg.
      suffered, in an amount to be determined during the
      course of the proceedings;                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                —     Declare that the Commission failed to adopt the necessary
                                                                                 measures within a reasonable time following the appli-
                                                                                 cant’s complaint on the basis of Article 3 of Regulation
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  No 17;
                                                                           —     Declare that the Commission is obliged to take the
In the present case, the applicant — who is also the applicant                   necessary measures within one month against the party
in Joined Cases T-7/98, T-208/98 and T-109/99 De Nicola v                        complained against in the applicant’s complaint pursuant
European Investment Bank (EIB) — is contesting various                           to Regulation No 17;
measures which he regards as having been adopted with a
view to obstructing compliance with the judgment delivered                 —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
on 23 February 2001 in the abovementioned cases (1).
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:                            Pleas in law and main arguments
—     infringement of the Staff Regulations and the Code of
      Conduct, if and in so far as the latter is applicable,               The applicant states that on 23 March 1998 he lodged a
      inasmuch as the letter of 6 March 2001 introduces a new              complaint with the Commission of the European Communi-
      type of penalty which is not provided for. He claims, in             ties, arguing that the rules applied by Fédération International
      addition, that the enclosure to that letter lays down new            de Football Association (FIFA) to the activity of player’s agent
      rules which are different from and contrary to those                 were contrary to Community law, in particular Articles 49 EC
      provided for in the employment contract, in breach of                and 81 EC (COMP/37.124 Piau/FIFA). The Commission made
      the Charter of Human Rights and the principles of proper             a thorough investigation and on 19 October 1999 sent FIFA a
      conduct and contractual good faith.                                  statement of complaints. On 24 February 2000 the parties
                                                                           presented their views orally. On 31 January 2001 the applicant,
—     failure, as regards the letter from the President of the EIB         since he had not received any statement of position, called on
      — which suspended the applicant from all duties with                 the Commission to respond. To this day, almost three years
      immediate effect and prohibited him from entering his                after the complaint was made, the Commission has not taken
      office — to comply with the obligation to communicate                a clear, explicit position on the problem submitted to it by the
      in advance the facts in issue.                                       applicant.