- 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-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)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TA0264
62011TA0264
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 313/22
(Case T-264/11 P) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(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.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.