Order;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2022:1042
Date: 2022-12-22
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Staff cases;Appeal - successful

Appeal brought on 2 June 2021 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2021 in Case T-374/20, KM v European Commission (Case C-341/21 P) Language of the case: German Parties Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. S. Bohr and B. Mongin, acting as Agents) Other parties to the proceedings: KM, European Parliament, Council of the European Union Form of order sought The Commission claims that the Court should: set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 March 2021 (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-374/20, KM v Commission; dismiss the action; order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance; order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings on appeal. Grounds of appeal and main arguments In support of its appeal, the Commission puts forward three grounds of appeal. In its first ground of appeal, the Commission alleges an error of law concerning the criteria for assessing the legality of decisions made by the legislature and a breach of the obligation to state reasons. The General Court departed from the principle that the assessment of the legality of an EU measure in relation to fundamental rights may not be based on claims relating to the consequences of that measure on a case by case basis; the illegality of a provision of the Staff Regulations may not be founded on the ‘inappropriateness’ of a decision of the legislature; the General Court misapplied the judgment of 19 December 2019 in case C-460/18 P, 1 not taking into account all aspects of established principles, that characterise the two situations under comparison. By the second ground of appeal, the Commission claims an error of law in the interpretation of the principle of non-discrimination, according to which the situations in Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations are comparable. The date of entering into marriage is not the only criterion which distinguishes Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII. That distinction is based on a number of elements that the General Court refused to take into account; the General Court should have considered the purpose of the condition of a minimum duration of marriage in Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII, which their differences should have made clear; the same conclusion holds for discrimination on grounds of age. By the third ground of appeal, the Commission also alleges an error of law in the interpretation of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights 2 and several breaches of the obligation to state reasons. First, there is an error of law in the interpretation of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, where the consequences of the death of the official for the surviving spouse are not to be distinguished according to whether the marriage was concluded before or after leaving the service; secondly, the General Court committed an error of law in the interpretation of the objective to prevent fraud and breached the obligation to state reasons. ____________ 1 Judgment of 19 December 2019, HK v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2019:1119. 2 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391).