# C_2022340EN.01002501.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/25

---

Appeal brought on 14 July 2022 by OC against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 4 May 2022 in Case T-384/20, OC v Commission

(Case C-479/22 P)

(2022/C 340/32)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: OC (represented by: I. Ktenidis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Appeal seeking to have set aside the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2022 in Case T-384/20, OC v European Commission (ECLI:EU:T:2022:273)

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal;

| — | give a final judgment in the dispute; |
| --- | --- |

—

give a final judgment in the dispute;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant raises the following three grounds:

| 1. | First ground: Incorrect interpretation of Article 3(1) of Regulation 2018/1725 (1) regarding, first, the concept of ‘identifiable’ physical person and, second, the concept of means that are reasonably likely to be used to identify a natural person, as well as distortion of the clear sense of the evidence relating to the identification of the appellant by a specific person. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground: Incorrect interpretation of Article 3(1) of Regulation 2018/1725 (1) regarding, first, the concept of ‘identifiable’ physical person and, second, the concept of means that are reasonably likely to be used to identify a natural person, as well as distortion of the clear sense of the evidence relating to the identification of the appellant by a specific person.

| 2. | Second ground: Incorrect interpretation of Article 9(1) of Regulation No 883/2013 (2) and of Article 48(1) of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 6(2) of the ECHR, regarding the scope of the presumption of innocence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground: Incorrect interpretation of Article 9(1) of Regulation No 883/2013 (2) and of Article 48(1) of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 6(2) of the ECHR, regarding the scope of the presumption of innocence.

| 3. | Third ground: Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence relating to the breach of the right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground: Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence relating to the breach of the right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (Text with EEA relevance), OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39.

(2)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999, OJ 2013 L 248, p. 1.

---