CELEX: 62009FA0041
Language: en
Date: 2010-06-29 00:00:00
Title: Case F-41/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Roumimper v European Police Office (Europol) (Public service — Europol staff — Non-renewal of a contract — Contract for an indefinite period — Article 6 Europol Staff Regulation — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

23.10.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 288/71
            
         
      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Roumimper v European Police Office (Europol)
      (Case F-41/09) (1)
      
      (Public service - Europol staff - Non-renewal of a contract - Contract for an indefinite period - Article 6 Europol Staff Regulation - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)
      (2010/C 288/132)
      Language of the case: Dutch
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Jacques Pierre Roumimper (Zoetermeer, Netherlands) (represented initially by P. de Casparis, lawyer, and subsequently by W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann and D. El Khoury Agents, and B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)
      
         Re:
      
      Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer him a permanent post and the decision of 7 January 2009 dismissing the complaint against the first decision.
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      The Tribunal:
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to award a contract for an indefinite period to Mr Roumimper;
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Orders Europol to pay the costs.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.09, p. 63.