Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62011TA0418

    Case T-418/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Sickness insurance — Refusal to reimburse medical expenses — Request to designate an independent doctor — Reasonable period — Rejection of a request to institute arbitration proceedings — Claim for setting aside — Claim for reimbursement of medical expenses — Lis pendens)

    IO C 313, 26.10.2013, p. 23–24 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    26.10.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 313/23


    Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — De Nicola v EIB

    (Case T-418/11 P) (1)

    (Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Sickness insurance - Refusal to reimburse medical expenses - Request to designate an independent doctor - Reasonable period - Rejection of a request to institute arbitration proceedings - Claim for setting aside - Claim for reimbursement of medical expenses - Lis pendens)

    2013/C 313/45

    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-49/10 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 (First Chamber) in Case F-49/10 De Nicola v EIB, in so far as it rejects Mr Carlo De Nicola’s claims seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) rejecting his request to designate a third doctor;

    2.

    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

    3.

    Annuls the EIB’s decision rejecting, on the ground of having been submitted out of time, Mr De Nicola’s request to designate a third doctor;

    4.

    Orders Mr De Nicola and the EIB to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.


    (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


    Top