CELEX: 62008TN0371
Language: en
Date: 2008-09-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-371/08 P: Appeal brought on 8 September 2008 by Bart Nijs against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 26 June 2008 in Case F-5/07 Nijs v Court of Auditors

22.11.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 301/45
            
         Appeal brought on 8 September 2008 by Bart Nijs against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 26 June 2008 in Case F-5/07 Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-371/08 P)
   (2008/C 301/77)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Appellant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Rollinger and A. Hertzog, lawyers)
   
      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 well-founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Consequently, annul the order of 26 June 2008 in Case F-5/07 Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal's order is vitiated by a manifest error in the assessment of procedural provisions inasmuch as it regards the action as inadmissible by reason of a failure to comply with the requirements of clarity, an infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and an erroneous application of the presumption of legality to the defendant's contentions inasmuch as the order was made after a single exchange of written pleadings.
   In addition, the applicant considers that the contested order is lacking in clarity, is unsupported by evidence, is vitiated by a manifest error in the consideration of the pleas in law raised in the application and does not consider certain matters which the Tribunal should have considered of its own motion.
   The applicant also claims that the contested order should have taken account of the lack of a statement of reasons at the pre-litigation stage and that it was wrongly based on a failure to comply with time-limits, inasmuch as the Tribunal had not carried out a suficient investigation to reach that conclusion.