- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-75/16 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-128/11 De Nicola v EIB
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0075
62016TN0075
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
4.4.2016
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 118/39
—
(Case T-75/16 P)
(2016/C 118/45)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank
Form of order sought by the appellant
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—Uphold the present appeal and, entirely reversing the order under appeal, annul points 1 and 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 1, 7 to 25, 51 to 52, 63 to 76, 80, 84, 87 to 88, 97 to 98 and 101 to 115 of the order itself;
—Consequently, annul all the contested acts and order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs;
—Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-128/11).
The grounds of appeal and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-55/16 P De Nicola v European Investment Bank.
The appellant emphasises, in particular, that the heads of claim seeking annulment of the messages of 4 July and 12 August 2011 and annulment of the decision of 6 September 2011 rejecting the request to launch a conciliation procedure are admissible.
—