# C_2008285EN.01004301.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/43

---

Appeal brought on 14 August 2008 by Marianne Timmer against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 5 June 2008 in Case F-123/06 Timmer v Court of Auditors

(Case T-340/08 P)

(2008/C 285/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Marianne Timmer (Saint-Sauves-d'Auvergne, France) (represented by F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Annul the order of 5 June 2008 in Case F-123/06 Marianne Timmer v Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the order of 5 June 2008 in Case F-123/06 Marianne Timmer v Court of Auditors;

Marianne Timmer

Court of Auditors

| — | Uphold the claim for compensation for loss suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the claim for compensation for loss suffered;

| — | Uphold the claim for costs against the Court of Auditors. |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the claim for costs against the Court of Auditors.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this appeal, the applicant seeks annulment of the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 June 2008 in Case F-123/06 Timmer v Court of Auditors whereby the Tribunal dismissed as inadmissible her action claiming, first that the Tribunal should annul her staff reports for the period 1984 to 1997 along with the connected and/or subsequent decisions, including that appointing the reporting officer concerned to the position of Head of the Dutch Unit in the Translation Department of the Court of Auditors and, second, a claim for damages to compensate for the loss allegedly suffered.

Timmer

Court of Auditors

In support of her appeal, the applicant relies on six pleas in law alleging:

| — | distortion the facts capable of being inferred from the evidence submitted to the Tribunal and error in assigning the burden of proof; |
| --- | --- |

—

distortion the facts capable of being inferred from the evidence submitted to the Tribunal and error in assigning the burden of proof;

| — | distortion of the applicant's request to the appointing authority of 29 July 2005 concerning compliance with Article 14 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities in the version in force prior to the modification thereof by the entry into force Regulation No 723/2004 (1) inasmuch as that request did not seek the re-examination of the applicant's staff reports as indicated at paragraph 37 of the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

distortion of the applicant's request to the appointing authority of 29 July 2005 concerning compliance with Article 14 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities in the version in force prior to the modification thereof by the entry into force Regulation No 723/2004 (1) inasmuch as that request did not seek the re-examination of the applicant's staff reports as indicated at paragraph 37 of the order under appeal;

1

| — | error in the legal classification of the pre-litigation complaint of 26 February 2006, the aim of which was the annulment of the staff reports and the decision on the applicant's career and not ‘taking into account of numerous other new facts’ (paragraph 41 of the order under appeal); |
| --- | --- |

—

error in the legal classification of the pre-litigation complaint of 26 February 2006, the aim of which was the annulment of the staff reports and the decision on the applicant's career and not ‘taking into account of numerous other new facts’ (paragraph 41 of the order under appeal);

| — | failure to state reasons for the decision to reject the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to state reasons for the decision to reject the complaint;

| — | in the alternative, failure to state sufficient reasons for that decision to reject, inasmuch as the Tribunal should have examined the insufficiency of the reasons stated; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, failure to state sufficient reasons for that decision to reject, inasmuch as the Tribunal should have examined the insufficiency of the reasons stated;

| — | error in the application of the case-law regarding the unlawful exercise of activities by the applicant's hierarchical superior, since the applicant did not claim that those staff reports were vitiated by the unlawfulness of the appointment of her hierarchical superior, but by the unlawful occupation of a position which the applicant could have held and by the personal interest of her hierarchical superiors (paragraph 42 of the order under appeal). |
| --- | --- |

—

error in the application of the case-law regarding the unlawful exercise of activities by the applicant's hierarchical superior, since the applicant did not claim that those staff reports were vitiated by the unlawfulness of the appointment of her hierarchical superior, but by the unlawful occupation of a position which the applicant could have held and by the personal interest of her hierarchical superiors (paragraph 42 of the order under appeal).

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1).

1

---