EN
C 252/20
Official Journal of the European Union
17.7.2023
— consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance, and, therefore: — annul the decision of 21 January 2021 reassigning the appellant to the post of Adviser in the Directorate-General for the Presidency and, to the extent necessary, the decision of 8 March 2021 to recover the overpayment; — in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 16 September 2021 rejecting the appellant’s claim of 7 April 2021; — make good the appellant’s material and non-material damage; — order the respondent to pay in full the costs of both sets of proceedings.
Grounds of appeal and main arguments In support of her appeal, the appellant relies on the following grounds; 1.
The judgment under appeal fails to have regard to the concept of law giving the opportunity to be heard, makes incorrect legal characterisations and distorts the documents before the Court.
The General Court failed to have regard to its obligation to state reasons. 2.
The judgment under appeal fails to have regard to the obligation to state reasons. 3.
The judgment under appeal fails to comply with the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.
Appeal brought on 11 April 2023 by Penya Barça Lyon: Plus que des supporters (PBL) and Issam Abdelmouine against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 8 February 2023 in Case T-538/21, PBL and WA v Commission (Case C-224/23 P) (2023/C 252/23) Language of the case: French Parties Appellants: Penya Barça Lyon: Plus que des supporters (PBL), Issam Abdelmouine (represented by: J. Branco, avocat) Other party to the proceedings: European Commission Form of order sought The appellants claim that the Court should: — set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 February 2023 in Case T-538/21, PBL and WA v Commission in its entirety; — uphold the final conclusions presented by the applicants at first instance in their entirety.
Grounds of appeal and main arguments In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on several grounds of appeal.
First, the General Court erred in fact and in law by rejecting, as inadmissible, the application for annulment in respect of Penya Barça Lyon, given, (i), that the first applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings takes precedence over that of the second applicant when several people bring one and the same action and, (ii), by refusing the offer of evidence by the applicants in order to demonstrate the first applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings.
Secondly, the General Court infringed the applicants’ procedural rights by failing to rule on a plea presented relating to the discretionary nature of the Commission’s power concerning the complaints lodged before it.
Thirdly, the General Court erred in law by disregarding any direct proprietary and economic interest in the facts of the case of the applicants.