Ez a dokumentum az EUR-Lex webhelyről származik.
Dokumentum 62007FN0108
Case F-108/07: Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Bart Nijs v European Court of Auditors
Case F-108/07: Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Bart Nijs v European Court of Auditors
Case F-108/07: Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Bart Nijs v European Court of Auditors
OJ C 22, 26.1.2008., 56—56. o.
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
26.1.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 22/56 |
Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Bart Nijs v European Court of Auditors
(Case F-108/07)
(2008/C 22/108)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant(s): Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)
Defendant: European Court of Auditors
Form of order sought
— |
annul the decision of the European Court of Auditors to renew the mandate of the Secretary General of the Court of Auditors for a further period of six years from 1 July 2007 |
— |
in the alternative, annul the two measures allegedly constituting ‘decisions of the appointing authority’ of 8 December 2006 implementing the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 October 2006 in Case T-171/05, and of 12 July 2007, rejecting the applicant's complaint of 12 March 2007 |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his action, the applicant relies in particular on the following facts: (i) the Secretary General of the Court of Auditors acted unlawfully; rather than referring the matter to the Anti-Fraud Office, he expressly refused to take measures or to examine the question when he had been informed, with documentary evidence, of the existence of a fraud to the detriment of the invalidity pensions system; (ii) an official exercised his powers in an unlawful manner; (iii) promotion decisions and their dates were repeatedly not published; (iv) the staff committee elections of 2004 and 2006 were unlawful for a number of reasons; (v) there were many instances of misuse of the promotion procedure, of usurpation of the power to appoint allowed to a head of unit, and of personal interests likely to compromise the independence of the appointing authority in nearly all its decisions; (vi) the ‘decisions of the appointing authority’ emanated from the personal interests of all the applicant's hierarchical superiors, from the concealment of the call to a colleague to exercise superior functions on an interim basis, and from failure to refer the matter to the Anti-Fraud Office; (vii) the appointing authority based the contested decisions on the same series of manifest errors as the intial decisions, which they confirm, relying on a judgment that does not have the force of res judicata and without refuting any of the applicant's arguments; (viii) the committees also involved in the assessment and promotion procedure were not informed of the compromised independence of the applicant's hierarchical superiors.