EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TN0567
Case T-567/08 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2008 by Bart Nijs against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 9 October 2008 in Case F-49/06 Nijs v Court of Auditors
Case T-567/08 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2008 by Bart Nijs against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 9 October 2008 in Case F-49/06 Nijs v Court of Auditors
Case T-567/08 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2008 by Bart Nijs against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 9 October 2008 in Case F-49/06 Nijs v Court of Auditors
OJ C 55, 7.3.2009, p. 39–39
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
7.3.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 55/39 |
Appeal brought on 19 December 2008 by Bart Nijs against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 9 October 2008 in Case F-49/06 Nijs v Court of Auditors
(Case T-567/08 P)
(2009/C 55/70)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Rollinger, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Communities
Form of order sought by the appellant
|
— |
declare the appeal admissible; |
|
— |
declare the appeal founded; |
|
— |
accordingly, annul the order of 9 October 2008 in Case F-5/07 Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
By this appeal, the applicant seeks annulment the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (the Tribunal) of 9 October 2008 in Case F-49/06 Nijs v Court of Auditors dismissing, as partially inadmissible and partially unfounded, the action for, first, annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade A*11 for the 2005 promotion procedure and, second, damages.
In support of his appeal, the applicant puts forward four grounds of appeal:
|
— |
distortion of the application and the reply inasmuch as the judgment under appeal replaces a plea alleging that there was no decision by the appointing authority, implying a total lack of motivation, by a completely different plea; |
|
— |
disregard and/or distortion of the evidence, the Tribunal having excluded it; |
|
— |
wrong attribution of the burden of proof inasmuch as the Tribunal should have required proof of the defendant's allegations; |
|
— |
breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence concerning the order that the appellant pay the costs at first instance. |