CELEX: 62022CN0007
Language: en
Date: 2022-01-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-7/22 P: Appeal brought on 4 January 2022 by RQ against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 17 November 2021 in Case T-147/17, Anastassopoulos and Others v Council and Commission

14.3.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 119/27
            
         
      Appeal brought on 4 January 2022 by RQ against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 17 November 2021 in Case T-147/17, Anastassopoulos and Others v Council and Commission
      (Case C-7/22 P)
      (2022/C 119/35)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: RQ (represented by: M. Meng-Papantoni, H. Tagaras, avocats)
      
         Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Allow the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  decide on the further course of action as a matter of right;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendants to pay the costs.
               
            
         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
      
      In the first place, the appellant submits that the General Court distorted the appellant’s application as regards the act adversely affecting it.
      In the second place, the appellant submits that the General Court made several errors of law:
      As regards, first, the liability of the European Union for unlawful conduct, the General Court disregarded the principles of the rule of law and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by holding that the acts and omissions of the Eurogroup could not, in any event, give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union. The General Court also failed to have regard to the principle of equal treatment by holding that the mere acquisition of bonds, subsequently discounted, by natural and legal persons, was sufficient to consider them to be in an identical or comparable situation within the meaning of the case-law.
      Next, the General Court made errors of law concerning strict liability. First, according to the appellant, the General Court wrongly excluded the very existence of strict liability. Second, the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the ‘abnormal’ nature of the damage.