CELEX: 62011TA0264
Language: en
Date: 2013-09-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-264/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Appraisal — Promotion — 2007 appraisal and promotion period — Decision of the Appeals Committee — Psychological harassment — Reasonable period — Claim for setting aside — Claim for damages)

26.10.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 313/22
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-264/11 P) (1)
   
   (Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Appraisal - Promotion - 2007 appraisal and promotion period - Decision of the Appeals Committee - Psychological harassment - Reasonable period - Claim for setting aside - Claim for damages)
   2013/C 313/41
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: initially by T. Gilliams and F. Martin, and subsequently by Gilliams and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   
      Re:
   
   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) in Case F-59/09 De Nicola v EIB, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) in Case F-59/09 De Nicola v EIB, in so far as it rejects Mr Carlo De Nicola’s claims seeking the annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and compensation for the damage he claims to have suffered as a result of his harassment by the EIB;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Reserves the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.