# C_2021098EN.01000202.xml

| 22.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/2

---

Appeal brought on 23 November 2020 by PV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fifth Chamber) on 30 January 2020 in Joined Cases T-786/16 and T-224/18, PV v Commission

(Case C-640/20 P)

(2021/C 98/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: PV (represented by: D. Birkenmaier, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of 30 January 2020 in Joined Cases T-786/16 and T-224/18; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of 30 January 2020 in Joined Cases T-786/16 and T-224/18;

| — | Rule on the present dispute as well as on Joined Cases T-786/16 and T-224/18 as provided for in Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule on the present dispute as well as on Joined Cases T-786/16 and T-224/18 as provided for in Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice;

| — | Order the respondent to pay the costs in respect of Case C-111/20 P as well as all the other costs of the proceedings relating to Cases T-786/16, T-224/18, T-224/18 R1 and T-224/18 R2. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the respondent to pay the costs in respect of Case C-111/20 P as well as all the other costs of the proceedings relating to Cases T-786/16, T-224/18, T-224/18 R1 and T-224/18 R2.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

| 1. | The first ground of appeal relates to the incorrect interpretation of Articles 72 and 270 TFEU and of Article 23 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and to the finding of the General Court that the Staff Regulations constitute the sole source of law for ruling on disputes between agents and their institutions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first ground of appeal relates to the incorrect interpretation of Articles 72 and 270 TFEU and of Article 23 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and to the finding of the General Court that the Staff Regulations constitute the sole source of law for ruling on disputes between agents and their institutions;

| 2. | The second ground of appeal relates to an infringement of Article 4 TEU, of Article 41 of the Charter and of Article 11a of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second ground of appeal relates to an infringement of Article 4 TEU, of Article 41 of the Charter and of Article 11a of the Staff Regulations;

| 3. | The third ground of appeal alleges an infringement of the general legal principle of fraus omnia corrompit and of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third ground of appeal alleges an infringement of the general legal principle of fraus omnia corrompit and of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice;

| 4. | The fourth ground of appeal relates to the finding that there was no breach of Articles 1, 3, 4, 31 and 41 of the Charter as well as of Articles 1e and 12a of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

4.

The fourth ground of appeal relates to the finding that there was no breach of Articles 1, 3, 4, 31 and 41 of the Charter as well as of Articles 1e and 12a of the Staff Regulations;

| 5. | The fifth ground of appeal concerns the use of ‘substantively false certifications’, a distorted interpretation of the third and fifth subparagraphs of Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations and an infringement of Internal Commission Decision 92-2004 of 6 July 2014; |
| --- | --- |

5.

The fifth ground of appeal concerns the use of ‘substantively false certifications’, a distorted interpretation of the third and fifth subparagraphs of Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations and an infringement of Internal Commission Decision 92-2004 of 6 July 2014;

| 6. | The sixth ground of appeal relates to intentionally fraudulent errors committed in regard to the application of the principle of the objection of non-performance in synallagmatic relationships; |
| --- | --- |

6.

The sixth ground of appeal relates to intentionally fraudulent errors committed in regard to the application of the principle of the objection of non-performance in synallagmatic relationships;

| 7. | The seventh ground of appeal alleges an infringement of Article 41 of the Charter and of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations as well as wilful silence relating to the fraudulent misuse of EUR 21 593,64 in salary arrears by the PMO; |
| --- | --- |

7.

The seventh ground of appeal alleges an infringement of Article 41 of the Charter and of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations as well as wilful silence relating to the fraudulent misuse of EUR 21 593,64 in salary arrears by the PMO;

| 8. | The eighth ground of appeal relates to a distortion by omission of the consequences associated with the annulment of the first disciplinary procedure CMS 13/087; |
| --- | --- |

8.

The eighth ground of appeal relates to a distortion by omission of the consequences associated with the annulment of the first disciplinary procedure CMS 13/087;

| 9. | The ninth ground of appeal alleges an infringement of Article 15 of the Charter; |
| --- | --- |

9.

The ninth ground of appeal alleges an infringement of Article 15 of the Charter;

| 10. | The tenth ground of appeal, submitted in the alternative, alleges an infringement of the prohibition on adjudicating ultra petita. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The tenth ground of appeal, submitted in the alternative, alleges an infringement of the prohibition on adjudicating ultra petita.

---