Case C-680/22 P: Appeal brought on 4 November 2022 by DD against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2022 in Case T-470/20, DD v FRA
Date: 2022-11-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, freedom of expression, indemnification, rights of the defence, servant (EU)








C_2023071EN.01001501.xml










27.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/15






Appeal brought on 4 November 2022 by DD against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2022 in Case T-470/20, DD v FRA
(Case C-680/22 P)
(2023/C 71/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: DD (represented by: N. Lorenz, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety and










—


consequently,






—


annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 11 November 2019 to issue the disciplinary sanction of removal from post effective 15 November 2019;










—


if need be, annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 15 April 2020 rejecting the complaint by the Applicant;










—


compensate the material and the moral prejudices suffered by the Applicant;










—


order the Defendant to pay all the costs, including the costs at first instance and at appeal.









Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the Appellant raises the following pleas and principal arguments in relation to the contested judgment:






1.


Error of law, wrong legal classification of facts, distortion of evidence, manifest error of assessment, incomplete examination of the plea of the Applicant, insufficient reasoning, distortion of evidence, incorrect legal classification of facts, insufficient reasoning, illegal rejection of the measures of organisation of procedure requested, irregular procedure regarding the seventh plea in law.










2.


Error of law, insufficient reasoning, incomplete examination of the plea of the Applicant, distortion of evidence, manifest error of assessment, action ultra vires and ultra petita, violation of Article 11 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union regarding the first plea in law.










3.


Error of law, incorrect legal classification, distortion of evidence and manifest error of appraisal regarding the statement of facts.










4.


Error of law, distortion of evidence, manifest error of appraisal, insufficient reasoning, incomplete examination of the plea of the Applicant, failure to establish the legally relevant facts, legal examination of the relevant facts, incomplete examination of the plea, insufficient reasoning regarding the fifth plea in law.










5.


Error of law, distortion of evidence, incomplete examination of the plea, insufficient reasoning, irregular procedure and action ultra vires regarding the sixth plea in law.










6.


Incomplete examination of the plea and insufficient reasoning regarding the eighth plea in law.










7.


Distortion of evidence, manifest error of appraisal and incomplete examination of the plea of the Applicant regarding the second and third plea in law.










8.


Violation of Article 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by the General Court.