Appeal brought on 28 March 2011 by Bart Nijs against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 January 2011 in Case F-77/09 Nijs v Court of Auditors

(Case T-184/11 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 13 January 2011;

Primarily, annul the decision of the ad hoc committee of the European Court of Auditors of 15 January 2009 dismissing the applicant without reduction of his pension with effect from 1 February 2009;

Annul Decision 81-2007 of 20 September 2007 of the Court of Auditors conferring the powers of the Appointing Authority on an ad hoc committee;

Annul all the preparatory decisions taken by that ad hoc committee, in particular those of 22/29 October, 23 November 2007 and 12 June 2008 to open an administrative investigation;

In the alternative, if the Court should not allow the primary applications for annulment, hold that the sanction pronounced by the ad hoc committee of the European Court of Auditors on 15 January 2009 is, on the basis of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations, for the reasons further discussed above, far too harsh;

Refer the case back to the European Court of Auditors' Appointing Authority with a different composition or, failing that, pronounce a sanction, if genuinely deemed necessary, far better adapted to the facts;

In the further alternative, hold expressly that the principle of the reasonable length of proceedings has not been observed in the present case, as further discussed above, and taking into account the level of the sanction to be pronounced as appropriate;

Rule in accordance with the application initiating proceedings;

Order the European Court of Auditors to bear the costs of the present proceedings;

Allow the appellant all other rights and in particular that of being permitted to reply to the European Court of Auditors' written pleading;

Order the opposing party to bear the costs of the two instances;

Allow the appellant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on nine pleas in law.

1.    The first plea alleges a change in the subject-matter of the proceedings by the Civil Service Tribunal by interpreting the submissions of the appellant at the hearing as a withdrawal of his application for annulment of Decision No 81-2007.

2.    The second plea alleges a misinterpretation of the facts by the Civil Service Tribunal in paragraphs 40, 58 and 94 of the judgment appealed against.

3.    The third plea alleges a misinterpretation of the first plea of the action brought by the appellant in that the Civil Service Tribunal failed to take into account the paragraphs of Articles 22a and 22b of the Staff Regulations of the European Union relied upon.

4.    The fourth plea alleges the non-application by the Civil Service Tribunal of the principle of the reversal of the burden of proof.

5.    The fifth plea alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal made a bad legal decision with regard to the second plea of the appellant's action and failed to draw conclusions from the conduct of the Secretary-General in connection with Article 11a of the Staff Regulations.

6.    The sixth plea alleges failure by the Civil Service Tribunal to take into account the infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

7.    The seventh plea alleges bias towards the appellant by the official entrusted with the disciplinary enquiry.

8.    The eighth plea alleges the actual non-application of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as a result of the refusal to review whether the sanction was proportionate in the light of the facts in respect of which it was adopted.

9.    The ninth plea alleges that the principle of the reasonable length of proceedings was wrongly applied.

____________