Language of document : ECLI:EU:F:2014:248

JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

18 November 2014

Case F‑59/09 RENV

Carlo De Nicola

v

European Investment Bank (EIB)

(Civil service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — EIB staff — Annual appraisal — Internal rules — Appeals procedure — Right to be heard — Infringement by the Appeals Committee — Unlawful nature of the decision of the Appeals Committee — Psychological harassment — No need to adjudicate on the claim for damages)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, in which Mr De Nicola essentially sought, first, annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 14 November 2008, secondly, annulment of the promotion decisions of 29 April 2008 and of the decision of the same date not to promote him, thirdly, annulment of his appraisal report for 2007, fourthly, establishment of the psychological harassment which he claimed to have suffered, and fifthly, an order that the EIB cease the harassment and pay compensation for the damage he claimed to have suffered as a result of that harassment.

Held:      The decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank of 14 November 2008 is annulled. There is no need to adjudicate on the claim for damages for the harm alleged as a result of psychological harassment. The remainder of the action is dismissed. The European Investment Bank is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by Mr De Nicola in Cases F‑59/09, T‑264/11 P and F‑59/09 RENV.

Summary

1.      Officials — Staff of the European Investment Bank — Reports procedure — Appraisal report — Challenge before the Appeals Committee of the EIB — Committee’s decision to decline jurisdiction for the appeal without hearing the person concerned — Infringement of the rights of the defence

2.      Actions brought by officials — Staff of the European Investment Bank — Actions for damages — Claim for damages based on the same facts presented in two separate actions — Preference — Principle of the sound administration of justice — No need to adjudicate

1.      In an appeal by a member of staff of the European Investment Bank against the results of an annual appraisal procedure concerning him, the EIB’s Appeals Committee may decline jurisdiction for the appeal pursuant to point 20 of Annex A to the Communication on the performance appraisal procedure for 2007 only in exceptional cases, and it must inform the parties, stating the reasons for its disclaimer, particularly where the conduct of one of the parties during the proceedings has resulted in that situation, while still observing each party’s right to be heard, in accordance with point 10 of the same Annex.

Consequently, where the person concerned does not withdraw his appeal before the Appeals Committee, the fact that the Committee declines jurisdiction for the appeal without complying with points 10 and 20 of Annex A denies that person, by its very nature, the right to be heard on the different pleas in law which he raises, thereby depriving him of a level of review.

(see paras 51, 53, 54)

See:

judgment in De Nicola v EIB, T‑264/11 P, EU:T:2013:461, para. 44

2.      Where the evidence and claims of fact and law relating to the same facts underlying two claims for damages submitted by the same applicant in two separate actions against the same defendant are more detailed and reasoned by both parties in one of those actions, it follows that the Union judicature is in a better position to take cognisance of and assess the facts underlying the claim for damages in that case. Consequently, it is better able to ensure the sound administration of justice and effective judicial protection in that case. There is therefore no need to adjudicate on the claim for damages in the other case.

(see paras 68, 70, 71)

See:

judgment in De Nicola v EIB, F52/11, EU:F:2014:243