- 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-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)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TA0037
62010TA0037
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
9.6.2012
Official Journal of the European Union
C 165/17
(Case T-37/10) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(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.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.