EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022CN0423
Case C-423/22 P: Appeal brought on 27 June 2022 by the European Economic and Social Committee against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2022 in Case T-750/20 Correia v EESC
Case C-423/22 P: Appeal brought on 27 June 2022 by the European Economic and Social Committee against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2022 in Case T-750/20 Correia v EESC
Case C-423/22 P: Appeal brought on 27 June 2022 by the European Economic and Social Committee against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2022 in Case T-750/20 Correia v EESC
OJ C 359, 19.9.2022, p. 43–44
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
19.9.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 359/43 |
Appeal brought on 27 June 2022 by the European Economic and Social Committee against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2022 in Case T-750/20 Correia v EESC
(Case C-423/22 P)
(2022/C 359/51)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, A. Carvajal García-Valdecasas, L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt)
Other party to the proceedings: Paula Correia
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
1. |
Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 in so far as it declares admissible the request for career reconstitution, and reject the form of order sought by the applicant at first instance; |
|
2. |
Order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs before the General Court. |
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
In its appeal, the EESC argues that the concept of a reasonable period for submitting a request for career reconstitution, and the case-law on the factors to be taken into account in determining whether the period is reasonable, have been misinterpreted.
The first ground of appeal alleges an incorrect legal characterisation of the facts. It is argued that the General Court misrepresented part of the content of the defence and rejoinder and failed to undertake a complete characterisation of the points of fact and of law.
The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of the principle of legal certainty.