CELEX: 62009TN0452
Language: en
Date: 2009-11-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-452/02 P: Appeal brought on 11 November 2009 by Eckehard Rosenbaum against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 10 September 2009 in Case F-9/08 Rosenbaum v Commission

16.1.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 11/35
            
         Appeal brought on 11 November 2009 by Eckehard Rosenbaum against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 10 September 2009 in Case F-9/08 Rosenbaum v Commission
   (Case T-452/02 P)
   2010/C 11/65
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Eckehard Rosenbaum (Bonn, Germany) (represented by H.-J. Rüber, lawyer)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought by the appellant
   
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment delivered on 10 September 2009 by the Civil Service Tribunal in the case of Rosenbaum v Commission;
            
         
               —
            
            
               set aside the Commission’s grading decision of 13 February 2007;
            
         
               —
            
            
               require the Commission to grade the appellant in a manner which is non-discriminatory and consistent with his professional experience, and to take all further necessary measures resulting from the judgment;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay all costs relating to the dispute.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appeal has been brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 September 2009 in Case F-9/08 Rosenbaum v Commission, by which the action brought by the present appellant was dismissed.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant first of all submits that the Civil Service Tribunal conducted an incomplete examination of the first plea in law. The Civil Service Tribunal, the appellant continues, also erred in law in rejecting the other three pleas as these, in contrast to the view taken by the Tribunal, were appropriate for the purpose of setting aside the contested measure. In conclusion, the appellant expresses the view that the lack of higher-quality selection procedures has a bearing on the issue of the legality of the contested decision and that the rejection of the evidence adduced in this connection is for that reason unlawful.