This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0071
Case T-71/16 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-82/12 De Nicola v EIB
Case T-71/16 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-82/12 De Nicola v EIB
Case T-71/16 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-82/12 De Nicola v EIB
OJ C 118, 4.4.2016, p. 37–37
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
4.4.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 118/37 |
Appeal brought on 17 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-82/12 De Nicola v EIB
(Case T-71/16 P)
(2016/C 118/42)
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, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul points 2 and 3 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 68 to 75 of the judgment itself; |
|
— |
Consequently, 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 judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-82/12).
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 argues, in particular, that the claim for damages in Case F-82/12 was wrongly treated as equivalent to the claim for damages in Case F-55/08, and that there was an incorrect finding of res judicata regarding some of the requests for compensation.