Case F-1/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 27 June 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors (Staff Case — Officials — Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure — Statement of pleas and arguments — Time-limit for complaints — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2008-06-27
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Committee of the Regions, account, action by staff, capital transfer, legal profession, regulations for civil servants, savings

C 209/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.8.2008

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of
26 June 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall and M. Velardo)

(Case F-5/07) (1)

(Staff case — Officials — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of
Procedure of the Court of First Instance — Summary of the
pleas in law in the action — Time-limit for complaints —
Manifest inadmissibility)

(2008/C 209/131)

Language of the case: French

Re:

Application for annulment of competition EPSO/AST/7/05 —
Field 2 — Project/Contract management on the grounds of the
alleged discrimination between internal candidates from the
Community institutions and external candidates

Parties

Operative part of the order

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

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

Defendant: Court of Auditors of
(represented by: T. Kennedy,
J. Vermer, Agents)

the European Communities
J.-M. Stenier, G. Corstens and

2. The parties are to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007, p. 28

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the appointing authority not to
promote the applicant to Grade A*11 pursuant to the 2006
promotion year — Annulment of a series of decisions
concerning the career of the applicant and of other officials of
the Court of Auditors — Annulment of the result of the Court
of Auditor's Staff Committee election of 2006 — Claim for
damages

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of
27 June 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

Operative part of the order

(Case F-1/08) (1)

1. The action is dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly

manifestly unfounded.

2. Mr Nijs is ordered to pay all the costs.

(Staff Case — Officials — Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of
Procedure — Statement of pleas and arguments — Time-limit
for complaints — Manifest inadmissibility)

(1) OJ C 56, 10.3.2007, p. 44.

(2008/C 209/133)

Language of the case: French

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of
10 June 2008 — Baudelet-Leclaire v Commission

(Case F-40/07) (1)

(Staff cases — Open competition — Failure to include candi-
date's name on the reserve list — Equal treatment)

(2008/C 209/132)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Court of Auditors of
(represented by: T. Kennedy,
Agents)

the European Communities
J.-M. Stenier and G. Corstens,

Parties

Applicant: Cécile Baudelet-Leclaire (Brussels, Belgium)
sented by: M. Korving, lawyer)

(repre-

First, annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee not
to promote the applicant to Grade A*11 pursuant to the 2005
promotion year and, second, a claim for damages.

Re:

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/73

Operative part of the order

Action brought on 5 June 2008 — De Nicola v EIB

1. The action is dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly

manifestly unfounded.

2. Mr Nijs is ordered to pay all the costs.

(1) OJ C 64, 8.3.2008, p. 68.

(Case F-55/08)

(2008/C 209/135)

Language of the case: Italian

Action brought on 19 May 2008 — Bartha v Commission

Parties

(Case F-50/08)

(2008/C 209/134)

Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented
by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Parties

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Applicant: Gábor Bartha (Brussels, Belgium)
P. Homoki, lawyer)

(represented by:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of EPSO not to include the appli-
cant's name in the reserve list of successful candidates in compe-
tition EPSO/AD/56/06.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the selection board of the European
Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 19 November 2007
concerning the result of the competition ‘EPSO/AD/56/06
Administrators (AD5) of Hungarian citizenship’;

— Annul

the decision of

the EPSO selection board of
23 January 2008 rejecting the complaint concerning the
result of the competition;

An application, first, for annulment, in part, of the decision of
the Appeals Committee concerning the assessment of the appli-
cant for 2006 and, secondly, for a declaration that the applicant
has been the victim of harassment and intimidation at the work-
place (‘mobbing’) and an order that the defendant desist from
such conduct and compensate the applicant for the damage
suffered.

Form of order sought

— Annul

by

the

e-mail

decision

communicated

on
sent on
17 November 2007, a copy of which was
19 December 2007,
in so far as the Appeals Committee
rejected the applicant's appeal against the assessment made
by his superiors for 2006 in so far as it is based on the
assumption that the applicant had abandoned his claims
alleging irregularities in the assessment procedure for 2006
and,
the applicant
in so far as it contends that
accepted the criticisms made by his superiors;

finally,

— Annul the decision of the EPSO selection board of 31 March
2008 confirming the rejection of the complaint concerning
the result of the competition;

— render the promotions decided upon on 13 July 2007 void
in so far as the applicant was not considered for promotion
from Grade E to Grade D;

— Order the Defendant to make good the damage arising from

the decisions whose annulment is sought;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

— annul all related, consequent and prior measures, including
the assessment of the applicant for 2006 in so far as it fails
to propose that he be given the mark A or B+ and his
promotion to Grade D and, if appropriate, declare that the
restrictions (both quantitative and non-quantitative) imposed
by the instructions given by the Directorate of Human
Resources are unlawful and to be disapplied;