CELEX: 62009FN0077
Language: en
Date: 2009-09-14 00:00:00
Title: Case F-77/09: Action brought on 14 September 2009 — Nijs v European Court of Auditors

21.11.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 282/65
            
         Action brought on 14 September 2009 — Nijs v European Court of Auditors
   (Case F-77/09)
   2009/C 282/125
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: Fränk Rollinger, avocat)
   
      Defendant: European Court of Auditors
   
      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   
   Application for annulment of the decision of the Committee ad hoc of the European Court of Auditors of 15 January 2009 removing the applicant from his post with effect from 1 February 2009 without reduction in pension
   
      Form of order sought
   
   Principally, annul the decision of the Committee ad hoc of the European Court of Auditors of 15 January 2009 removing the applicant from his post with effect from 1 February 2009 without reduction in pension;
   Annul the European Court of Auditors’ decision 81-2007 of 20 September 2007 conferring certain powers of the Appointing Authority on a Committee ad hoc;
   Annul all the preparatory decisions adopted by that Committee ad hoc, particularly those of 22/29 October and 23 November 2007 and of 12 June 2008 to open an administrative enquiry;
   In the alternative, should the Tribunal not uphold the applications for annulment formulated in the principal heads of relief, hold that the penalty inflicted by the Committee ad hoc of the European Court of Auditors on 15 January 2009 is, on the basis of Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, for the reasons set out above, far too severe;
   Refer the matter to a differently constituted Appointing Authority of the European Court of Auditors, to inflict a different penalty, if one is really considered necessary, much more suited to the facts;
   In the further alternative, find expressly that the principle that procedures should be conducted with reasonable expedition was infringed in this case, as set out above, and taking account of the level of the penalty to be inflicted, if one is appropriate;
   Order the defendant to pay the costs.