# C_2014235EN.01000701.xml

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/7

---

Appeal brought on 27 February 2014 by H against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-490/13 GJ v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-221/14 P)

2014/C 235/10

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: H (represented by: S. Sagias, Δικηγόρος)

Appellant:

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

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for hearing on the merits or, in the alternative, uphold the claims put forward at first instance in their entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for hearing on the merits or, in the alternative, uphold the claims put forward at first instance in their entirety;

| — | order the defendant at first instance, respondent in the current proceedings, to pay the costs of all proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant at first instance, respondent in the current proceedings, to pay the costs of all proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward three grounds of appeal in support of his appeal against the order of the general Court of 27 February 2014.

By his first ground of appeal, the appellant begins by arguing that the General Court misinterpreted Article 263 TFEU and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations (1), as well as Articles 2 and 35 of the Rules on sickness insurance for officials of the European Communities. The appellant claims, first, that the order under appeal is vitiated by an error of law in that the General Court held that actions by former members of the Court against acts adversely affecting them in the area of JSIS coverage come solely within the scope of Article 263 TFEU and had to be brought within two months, as provided for under that provision. Secondly, the General Court erred in law in holding that Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials is not applicable to members and former members of the Court.

1

By his second ground of appeal, the appellant then argues that the General Court erred in law in refusing to apply the case-law on excusable error.

Lastly, by his third plea, the appellant submits that the application of Article 111 of the General Court’s Rules of Procedure is vitiated by an error of law and a procedural irregularity. The appellant disagrees that the action brought before the General Court was ‘manifestly’ inadmissible, which prevented it from specifying the ground of inadmissibility which served as the basis for that ruling. The General Court also infringed the appellant’s right to a fair hearing, his rights of defence and, in particular, the right to be heard and the right to an effective remedy, contrary to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1).

1

---