Case F-108/07: Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Bart Nijs v European Court of Auditors
Date: 2007-10-15
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, European official, action for annulment (EU), administration of the Institutions, appointment of staff, promotion, staff assessment

C 22/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.1.2008

The applicant made a complaint concerning the assessment and
the lack of any decision regarding the award of an increase in
monthly salary and, in that context, she relied on the assessment
guidelines in force in Europol. The applicant submits that the
assessment is manifestly incorrect.

The applicant submits in particular that her complaints were
declared unfounded by a decision of 26 June 2007 and alleges
breach of the principle of the duty to state reasons since no
reasons were stated for that decision. Nevertheless, the Director
of Europol points out that the assessment was withdrawn and
that a fresh assessment was to be made. That assessment took
place on 25 July 2007.

The present action therefore relates to the decision made on the
complaint and the assessment of 25 July 2007.

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

(iv)

the

the power

repeatedly not published;

their dates were
staff
committee elections of 2004 and 2006 were unlawful for a
number of reasons; (v) there were many instances of misuse of
to
the promotion procedure, of usurpation of
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 deci-
sions, 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 super-
iors.

Action brought on 23 October 2007 — Behmer v
Parliament

(Case F-124/07)

(2008/C 22/109)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by:
F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Parties

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 consti-
tuting ‘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,
complaint of
rejecting the applicant's
12 March 2007

Applicant: Joachim Behmer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Annul

the decision of

the
European Parliament awarding two promotion points to the
applicant for 2005;

the appointing authority of

— Annul

the decision of

the appointing authority not

to

promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in 2006;

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

In support of his action, the applicant relies in particular on the
following facts: (i) the Secretary General of the Court of Audi-
tors 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 docu-
mentary 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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official at the European Parliament in grade
AD 12, alleges above all the unlawfulness of the decisions of
the appointing authority, firstly, to award the applicant two
promotion points for 2005 and, secondly, not to promote him
to grade AD 13 in 2006.