EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-567/08 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2008 by Bart Nijs against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 9 October 2008 in Case F-49/06 Nijs v Court of Auditors

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0567

62008TN0567

January 1, 2008
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/39

(Case T-567/08 P)

(2009/C 55/70)

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 Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

declare the appeal admissible;

declare the appeal founded;

accordingly, annul the order of 9 October 2008 in Case F-5/07 Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this appeal, the applicant seeks annulment the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (the Tribunal) of 9 October 2008 in Case F-49/06 Nijs v Court of Auditors dismissing, as partially inadmissible and partially unfounded, the action for, first, annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade A*11 for the 2005 promotion procedure and, second, damages.

In support of his appeal, the applicant puts forward four grounds of appeal:

distortion of the application and the reply inasmuch as the judgment under appeal replaces a plea alleging that there was no decision by the appointing authority, implying a total lack of motivation, by a completely different plea;

disregard and/or distortion of the evidence, the Tribunal having excluded it;

wrong attribution of the burden of proof inasmuch as the Tribunal should have required proof of the defendant's allegations;

breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence concerning the order that the appellant pay the costs at first instance.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia