EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-669/16 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2016 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-82/15, De Nicola v EIB

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0669

62016TN0669

September 21, 2016
With Google you find a lot.
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

7.11.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/25

(Case T-669/16 P)

(2016/C 410/36)

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 (EIB)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul point 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 12, 13, 24, 55 to 57, 123 to 135 and 157 to 165 of the judgment itself;

consequently, order the respondent to compensate Mr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016, which dismissed the proceedings brought by the appellant, concerning, in essence, on the one hand, the annulment of the decision of 4 December 2014, by which the respondent denied the appellant the reimbursement of certain medical expenses, and, on the other hand, the award by the respondent and the European Union of compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered.

In support of his appeal, the appellant disputes the findings on the scientific benefits of laser therapy in the judgment under appeal.

The appellant claims furthermore that the conditions relating to compensation for damage, whether material or non-material, are met in the present case.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia