ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

21 September 2015

Carlo De Nicola

v

European Investment Bank (EIB)

‛Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Reports procedure — Promotion — 2006 appraisal and promotion procedures — Psychological harassment — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded’

Appeal:

against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 November 2014 in De Nicola v EIB (F‑55/08 RENV, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:244), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Carlo De Nicola is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings.

Summary

1. Appeal — Grounds of appeal — Ground of appeal seeking rectification of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court

   (Art. 270 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 122(1))

2. Appeal — Grounds of appeal — Heads of claim seeking modification of the statement of reasons for a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal — Criticism of grounds having no influence on the operative part of the judgment under appeal — Inadmissibility

   (Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 9)

1.  Article 122(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, concerning the rectification of clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious inaccuracies, is not applicable to the procedure before the General Court, which is solely governed by its own Rules of Procedure. An appellant cannot therefore remedy his failure to act under that article by requesting the General Court to correct or rectify alleged clerical mistakes or obvious inaccuracies in contested decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal.

   (see para. 29)

   See:

   Order of 13 January 2014 in Lebedef v Commission, T‑116/13 P and T‑117/13 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2014:21, paras 44 and 45

2.  It is not the role of the appeal court to supplement statements of reasons for decisions delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal. Furthermore, where the Tribunal has granted the appellant’s application and has annulled the decision at issue, a ground of appeal alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal did not consider the second argument raised before it, and that the judgment should be supplemented to take account of that argument, is not capable of having an influence on the operative part of the judgment concerned and of procuring an advantage for the appellant. In that regard, since an appeal under Article 9 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice may be brought only by a party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions, the ground of appeal must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

   (see para. 35)

   See:

   Judgments of 19 October 1995 in Rendo and Others v Commission, C‑19/93 P, ECR, EU:C:1995:339, para. 13, and 13 July 2000 in Parliament v Richard, C‑174/99 P, ECR, EU:C:2000:412, para. 33