CELEX: 62010TA0037
Language: en
Date: 2012-04-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-37/10: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2012 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — Staff of the EIB — Appraisal — Promotion — Appraisal and promotion in respect of 2006 — Decision of the Appeals Committee — Scope of the review — Sickness insurance — Refusal to bear medical costs — Claim for compensation)

9.6.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 165/17
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2012 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-37/10) (1)
   
   (Appeal - Civil service - Staff of the EIB - Appraisal - Promotion - Appraisal and promotion in respect of 2006 - Decision of the Appeals Committee - Scope of the review - Sickness insurance - Refusal to bear medical costs - Claim for compensation)
   2012/C 165/29
   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 (represented by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   
      Re:
   
   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 in Case F-55/08 De Nicola v European Investment Bank, not yet published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) in Case F-55/08 De Nicola v EIB [2009], not yet published in the ECR, in so far as it dismisses, firstly, Mr Carlo De Nicola’s claims seeking annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank (EIB); secondly, his claims seeking annulment of the decision to refuse his promotion for 2006 and all the acts connected with, consecutive and prior to that decision; and, thirdly, his claims seeking recognition of the liability of the EIB for the harassment of him which it carried out and seeking compensation for the losses alleged on that basis;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Refers the matter back to the Civil Service Tribunal;
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Reserves the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.