Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 7 December 2001 by Carlo De Nicola against European Investment Bank

    (Case T-300/01)

    (Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the European Investment Bank was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 December 2001 by Carlo De Nicola, represented by Luigi Isola, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(annul the verbal dismissal of 6 September 2001 notified to the applicant by Thomas Beckett, the director of the Rome office, the subsequent dismissal served on the applicant by letter received on 12 September 2001, signed by the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB), Philippe Maystadt, together with all other consequent and related acts, including necessarily certain articles of the Staff Regulations and the Code of Conduct, in so far as the latter applies to the applicant;

(order the EIB to reinstate the applicant, restore his career as from February 1999 and pay the remuneration due to him in the meantime (together with interest) and pay the costs of the proceedings and damages in the terms set out below and to be further expounded in the course of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present action, who is challenging his dismissal by the defendant and the facts surrounding it, is the same one as in T-7/98, T-208/98 and T-109/99 De Nicola v EIB ¹ and T-120/01 De Nicola v EIB².

In support of his arguments, the applicant claims:

(that the Code of Conduct does not apply to him, inasmuch as it is a unilateral act drawn up and issued solely by the employer, not being required by the individual contract of employment or by the Staff Regulations;

(implied refusal to initiate disciplinary proceedings, in that it was only by letter of 13 June 2001 that the President of the EIB informed the applicant of the misconduct and infringements alleged against him, dating back to 1998. Such delay moreover is in breach of the employee's rights of defence;

(that the Disciplinary Board was irregularly constituted. The applicant claims in that respect that Article 40 of the Staff Regulations is unlawful inasmuch as it does not provide in any event for the substitution of the Head of Personnel, despite the existence of a dispute between him and the applicant, and inasmuch as there is no provision requiring a quorum of 4 voting members;

(infringement of the procedure provided for in Article 40 of the Staff Regulations;

(irregularity of the verbal dismissal of 6 September 2001, inasmuch as such dismissal is not provided for by any Community or other provision, and it was moreover intimated by the Director of the Rome office, whereas the Staff Regulations accords this power only to the President of the EIB;

(irregularity of the dismissal of 12 September 2001. The applicant points out in that respect that the misconduct leading to the disciplinary measure is certainly not held to be serious since the President, by virtue of Article 39 of the Staff Regulations, could have immediately suspended the official. Furthermore, the defendant made hardly any mention of specific times and places nor adduced evidence of the misconduct but instead sought to dismiss him for failure to cooperate during the disciplinary proceedings despite his never having been accused of such failure.

____________

¹ - Judgment of 23 February 2001 ECR-SC 2001 I-A-49, II-185.

² - OJ 2001 C 227, p. 30.