do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-893/24 P: Appeal brought on 23 December 2024 by AL against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2024 in Case T-22/22, AL v Council
Date: 2024-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, child protection, dependant, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_202501632EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1632


24.3.2025






Appeal brought on 23 December 2024 by AL against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2024 in Case T-22/22, AL v Council


(Case C-893/24 P)

(C/2025/1632)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: AL (represented by: R. Rata, avocată)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


annul the Secretary General of the Council of the European Union decision of 27 September 2021 by which the appellant was removed from his post;










—


allow the appellant to raise in the future new related pleas in law as soon as new matters of law or facts will become available to him;










—


raise any motion of public interest as it considers fit;










—


order the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the appellant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.
First, the General Court erred in law and assessment in deeming inadmissible the appellant’s new plea in law alleging violation of Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Second, the General Court erred in law in rejecting as unfounded the plea in law alleging infringement of Article 22(1) of the Staff Regulations.
Third, the General Court erred in law in rejecting as unfounded the pleas in law alleging infringement of Article 10 of Annex IX of the Staff regulations.
Fourth, the General Court erred in law in rejecting as unfounded the pleas in law alleging breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of appellant’s dependent child.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1632/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)