CELEX: 62018CN0570
Language: en
Date: 2018-09-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-570/18 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2018 by HF against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 June 2018 in Case T-218/17, HF v Parliament

17.12.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 455/20
            
         
      Appeal brought on 10 September 2018 by HF against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 June 2018 in Case T-218/17, HF v Parliament
      (Case C-570/18 P)
      (2018/C 455/29)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: HF (represented by: A. Tymen, avocate)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2018 in Case T-218/17,
                  Consequently,
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  uphold the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance and, thus,
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of the European Parliament of 30 June 2016 rejecting the appellant’s request for assistance,
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Parliament to pay compensation in respect of non-financial harm estimated ex aequo et bono at EUR 90 000,
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the European Parliament to pay all of the costs incurred at first instance and on appeal.
               
            
         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Breach of the right to be heard — Breach of Article 41[(2)](a) of the Charter;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Breach of Article 41(1) of the Charter — Distortion of the arguments of the appellant — Breach by the General Court of its obligation to state reasons;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Breach of Article 31(1) of the Charter — Infringement of Article 12a(1), (3) and (24) of the Staff Regulations.
               
            Furthermore, the appellant disputes the decision of the General Court to reject her claim for damages on the ground that the contested decision has not been set aside.