Action brought on 2 June 2013 – ZZ v EIB

(Case F-55/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2011 in so far as it does not classify his performance as ‘exceptional’ or ‘very good’ and does not propose that he be promoted to Function D and in so far as it sets his objectives for 2012, annulment of the guidelines for that staff report, and, lastly, an order that the EIB pay compensation for the material and non-material damage that the applicant claims he has sustained.

Form of order sought

Annul: (a) the decision of 18 December 2012 in so far as the Appeals Committee, under Article 22 of the Staff Regulations and Note to Staff No 715 HR/P&O/2012-0103 of 29 March 2012, dismissed the appeal against the applicant’s staff report for 2011; (b) the part of that staff report containing the appraisal, in so far as the applicant’s performance is not summarised as ‘Exceptional’ or ‘Very good’ and in so far as no proposal is made to promote him to Function D, together with the part which sets his objectives for 2012; (c) all connected, consequent and prior measures, including the promotions referred to in the note from the Director of Human Resources ‘2011 staff appraisal exercise, award of promotions and titles’ of May 2012, given that, in view of the appraisal made by the applicant’s line managers and challenged in this action, the EIB failed to take him into consideration in the point ‘Promotions from Function E to D’;

annul or refrain from applying the guidelines established by the Human Resources division in note No 709 RH/P&O/2011-0242 of 13 December 2011 and the corresponding ‘Guidelines to the 2011 annual staff appraisal exercise’ of 14 December 2011, including the section in which they provide that the final evaluation must be expressed by means of a summary description but do not establish the criteria which must be used by the appraiser in order for performance to be regarded as ‘exceptional – exceeding expectations’, ‘very good’, or ‘meeting all expectations’;

order the defendant to pay the costs and to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage.