do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-63/21 P: Appeal brought on 2 February 2021 by Laure Camerin against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2020 in Case T-367/19, Camerin v Commission
Date: 2021-02-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: assistant, deduction at source, elderly person, equal treatment, freedom of self-determination, indemnification, pension scheme, residence, staff regulations (EU), subsistence level income








C_2021228EN.01001601.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/16






Appeal brought on 2 February 2021 by Laure Camerin against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2020 in Case T-367/19, Camerin v Commission
(Case C-63/21 P)
(2021/C 228/20)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Laure Camerin (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the order of the General Court delivered on 24 November 2020 in Case T-367/19;










—


Order the Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred before the General Court.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal seeks the annulment of the order under appeal in so far as the General Court declared that there was no longer any need to adjudicate and declared the inadmissibility of the application which sought partial annulment of the decision of the PMO of 17 April 2019 and compensation for the non-material damage that the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the irregularities allegedly committed by the PMO, which make it impossible for the applicant to live in dignity.
In her appeal, the appellant disputes, in particular paragraphs 50 to 52 and 54 of the order under appeal and paragraphs 57 to 62, 67 and 73 to 74 of that order.
In support of the appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal, alleging distortion of the facts and manifest errors of assessment resulting in an incorrect statement of reasons in law.