# C_2022119EN.01002301.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/23

---

Appeal brought on 14 December 2021 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-279/19, Front Polisario v Council

(Case C-779/21 P)

(2022/C 119/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia el-Hamra et du Rio de oro (Front Polisario), Council of the European Union, French Republic, Confédération marocaine de l’agriculture et du développement rural (Comader)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal and consequently; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal and consequently;

| — | dismiss the action brought at first instance by the Front Polisario, or, if the state of proceedings does not permit the Court of Justice to give final judgment in the matter, refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action brought at first instance by the Front Polisario, or, if the state of proceedings does not permit the Court of Justice to give final judgment in the matter, refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | order the Front Polisario to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Front Polisario to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings in their entirety.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| — | First ground of appeal: errors in law based on the Front Polisario’s lack of capacity to be a party to legal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

First ground of appeal: errors in law based on the Front Polisario’s lack of capacity to be a party to legal proceedings.

| — | Second ground of appeal: errors in law based on the Front Polisario’s lack of direct concern. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second ground of appeal: errors in law based on the Front Polisario’s lack of direct concern.

| — | Third ground of appeal: errors in law based on the Front Polisario’s lack of individual concern. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third ground of appeal: errors in law based on the Front Polisario’s lack of individual concern.

| — | Fourth ground of appeal: errors in law regarding the scope of judicial review, the institutions’ margin of appreciation and the need to find that there had been a manifest error; regarding the consent of the people of Western Sahara not being a requirement; regarding the fact that the concept of consent adopted is too strict and theoretical, that the consultation that obtained the favourable opinion is considered insufficient and that the examination of the benefits is rejected; regarding the Front Polisario’s identification as the entity that would be responsible for giving such consent, given its limited status and representativeness. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth ground of appeal: errors in law regarding the scope of judicial review, the institutions’ margin of appreciation and the need to find that there had been a manifest error; regarding the consent of the people of Western Sahara not being a requirement; regarding the fact that the concept of consent adopted is too strict and theoretical, that the consultation that obtained the favourable opinion is considered insufficient and that the examination of the benefits is rejected; regarding the Front Polisario’s identification as the entity that would be responsible for giving such consent, given its limited status and representativeness.

| — | Fifth ground of appeal: errors in law regarding the possibility of relying on customary international law when examining the validity of an EU act. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fifth ground of appeal: errors in law regarding the possibility of relying on customary international law when examining the validity of an EU act.

---