CELEX: 62019CN0518
Language: en
Date: 2019-07-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-518/19 P: Appeal brought on 8 July 2019 by Jakov Ardalic and others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2019 in Joined Cases T-523/16 and T-542/16, Ardalic and Others v Council

21.10.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 357/15
            
         
      Appeal brought on 8 July 2019 by Jakov Ardalic and others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2019 in Joined Cases T-523/16 and T-542/16, Ardalic and Others v Council
      (Case C-518/19 P)
      (2019/C 357/21)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellants: Jakov Ardalic, Liliana Bicanova, Monica Brunetto, Claudia Istoc, Sylvie Jamet, Despina Kanellou, Christian Stouraitis, Abdelhamid Azbair, Abdel Bouzanih, Bob Kitenge Ya Musenga, El Miloud Sadiki, Cam Tran Thi (represented by: S. Orlandi, T. Martin, lawyers)
      
         Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellants claim that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the judgment under appeal;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision no longer to allow the appellants, as of 2014, travelling time or reimbursement of annual travel expenses;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Commission to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a number of errors of law.
      Firstly, the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 65 and 73 of the judgment in limiting the extent of the judicial review it is required to carry out to ‘manifest’ cases.
      Secondly, the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 68 to 71 of the judgment in finding that the appellants were not in a comparable situation to staff members who retained the benefit of travelling time and reimbursement of their annual travel expenses.
      Thirdly, the General Court erred in law in finding, in paragraphs 67 and 78 to 84 of the judgment, that the regulations at issue do not infringe the principle of proportionality.