This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0669
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
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
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
IO C 410, 7.11.2016, p. 25–26
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
7.11.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 410/25 |
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
(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.