CELEX: 62008TN0567
Language: en
Date: 2008-12-19 00:00:00
Title: 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

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.