Appeal brought on 9 November 2009 by Rinse van Arum against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 10 September 2009 in Case F-139/07 van Arum v Parliament

(Case T-454/09 P)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Rinse van Arum (Winksele, Belgium) (represented by W. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General Court should:

declare the appeal and the pleas in law and complaints set out therein admissible; and

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 in Case F-139/07; and

rule itself on the case and set aside the decision establishing the appellant's staff report; and

order the Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings that the appellant had to incur at first and second instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward the following pleas in support of his appeal:

Breach of Articles 1 and 9 of the general rules for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 15(2) and 87(1) of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities and the provisions of the Guide to Staff Reports;

Breach of Article 19 of the general implementing provisions and the duty to state reasons;

Breach of the principle that the parties should be heard, of the equality of the parties and the rights of the defence;

Breach of law in relation to the connection between the appraisal and the award of points, the rights of the defence and the principle of sound administration;

Breach of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of the European Communities ('the Staff Regulations') by the use of documents which were not in the case-file and breach of the principle that the parties should be heard, as well reversal of the burden of proof to the detriment of the appellant and breach of the duty to state reasons;

Breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, owing to the fact that the final assessor negligently took into account incorrect elements, and breach of legal principles as regards the burden of proof;

Incorrect application of the law, case-law and legal principles as regards Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, due care, sound administration and legal principles concerning evidence;

Breach of law as a result of unintelligible findings by the Civil Service Tribunal and incorrect classification of facts, as well as breach of the duty to state reasons and the rules of sound administration;

Incorrect assessment of facts.

____________