EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/182/71
Case T-171/05: Action brought on 2 May 2005 by Bart Nijs against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities
Case T-171/05: Action brought on 2 May 2005 by Bart Nijs against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities
Case T-171/05: Action brought on 2 May 2005 by Bart Nijs against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities
SL C 182, 23.7.2005, p. 38–38
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
23.7.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 182/38 |
Action brought on 2 May 2005 by Bart Nijs against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities
(Case T-171/05)
(2005/C 182/71)
Language of the case: French
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 May 2005 by Bart Nijs, Bereldange (Luxembourg), represented by Fränk Rollinger, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
1. |
annul the decision of the College of Merits of the Court of Auditors awarding the applicant his promotion points for 2003; |
|
2. |
annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to the grade of reviser in 2004; |
|
3. |
annul the applicant's staff report for 2003; |
|
4. |
annul decision No 6/2004 of 26 October 2004 of the Appeal Committee of the Court of Auditors upholding the applicant's staff report for 2003; |
|
5. |
annul any related and/or later decision; |
|
6. |
make good the damage suffered by the applicant and order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present case, having also brought the action lodged in Case T-377/04, (1) contests the decisions of the defendant awarding him promotion points for 2003 and establishing his staff report for that year, and its decision not to promote him in 2004 to the post of reviser in the Dutch translation unit.
In support of his claims he relies on pleas of:
|
— |
breach of Article 11a of the Staff Regulations and of the principles of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, sound administration and equal treatment, |
|
— |
irregularities in the appraisal procedure in that it was entrusted to officials whose integrity had been called into question by the pre-litigation procedure, |
|
— |
failure to respect time limits in the appraisal procedure, |
|
— |
failure in this case to consider comparative merits in the terms of the Dutch translation unit, |
|
— |
breach of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations by the failure to communicate the rules applicable to the 2004 promotion procedure, |
|
— |
misuse of powers in the case. |
(1) Case T-377/04 Nijs v Court of Auditors (OJ 2004 C 284, 20.11.2004, p. 26).