Case C-209/24 P: Appeal brought on 17 March 2024 by VP against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2024 in Case T-563/22, VP v Cedefop
Date: 2024-03-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: indemnification, powers of the institutions (EU), right to justice, rights of the defence, rule of law, servant (EU), termination of employment








C_202404570EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4570


29.7.2024






Appeal brought on 17 March 2024 by VP against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2024 in Case T-563/22, VP v Cedefop


(Case C-209/24 P)

(C/2024/4570)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: VP (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the Judgment in Case T-563/22;










—


award of compensation for immaterial damages, and










—


order Cedefop to bear all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on eight pleas in law:

First plea in law

The General Court distorted the facts that had been substantiated and proven by documentation in the case-file. The conclusion that the distortion of facts has occurred to the detriment of the Appellant shall and can be reached without requiring a re-assessment of the evidence. A distortion of facts represents a violation of the principle of a fair procedure and a violation of the principle of impartiality under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Second plea in law

The General Court disregarded the obligation to examine of its own motion (ex officio) the competence of the Appeals Committee of Cedefop, which allegedly adopted a replacement decision under Article 266 TFEU. The General Court incorrectly concluded that the Appeals Committee had adopted a replacement decision. The failure of the General Court to examine the said competence ex officio represents a violation of the principle of a fair procedure under Article 47 of the Charter.

Third plea in law

The Appeals Committee is actually not competent to adopt a replacement decision in the sense of Art 266 TFEU, so that, even if the decision of 17 June 2022 could be seen to represent such decision, quod non, the General Court would have had to dismiss it.

Fourth plea in law

The General Court committed a violation of the principle of the statutory judge enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter by ruling on matters which were not before it.
The General Court considered whether or not a decision not to renew the employment contract was lawful or not. This question had already been decided in T-187/18 and acquired the force of res iudicata in early 2021, so that the General Court in T-563/22 was not competent to judicate on it.
Further, the General Court committed a violation of the principle of the lawful judge by usurping the role and powers of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as the sole appeal body against judgments of the General Court.

Fifth plea in law

The General Court committed a violation of Article 266 TFEU and the related case-law by taking the incorrect time-period into account when reviewing the facts (‘exact point’ in time). A replacement decision under Article 266 TFEU has to be taken on the basis of the facts and the legal situation at the time when the mistake occurred that led to the annulment, in this case in 2017.
The General Court confirmed the obligation to adopt a replacement decision but exclusively considered facts of the years 2021/2022 when considering the lawfulness of a fictional replacement decision.

Sixth plea in law

The General Court disregarded the principle of preclusion and took into account entirely invented facts which it had no right to consider, even if they had been submitted by the defence, quod non. The violation of the principle of preclusion represents a violation of the principle of a fair procedure under Article 47 of the Charter.

Seventh plea in law

The General Court provided contradictory, distorted, inadequate and/or irrelevant reasons for its judgment. These reasons were neither based on the specificities of the case nor on the facts and cogent arguments submitted by the Appellant. A judgment not corresponding to the minimum quality requirements as regards reasoning and logic represents a violation of the principle of the rule of law (Article 2 TEU).

Eighth plea in law

The General Court violated the right to be heard and thus the right to a fair judicial procedure by not hearing the parties. The General Court based its judgment entirely on distorted and/or non-existent, invented facts that are neither identified by the General Court nor objectively identifiable, without giving the appellant the opportunity to comment on these invented facts, albeit central to the reasoning of the judgment. It failed to consider the facts, the valid arguments and the compelling evidence submitted by the appellant before adopting its judgment. The General Court thus also violated the right to be heard (Article 47 of the Charter).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4570/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)