CELEX: 62019CN0851
Language: en
Date: 2019-11-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-851/19 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2019 by DK against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2019 in Case T-217/18 DK v EEAS

2.3.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 68/30
            
         
      Appeal brought on 19 November 2019 by DK against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2019 in Case T-217/18 DK v EEAS
      (Case C-851/19 P)
      (2020/C 68/32)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: DK (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, avocats)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant submits that the Court of Justice should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the judgment of 10 September 2019 in DK v EEAS (T-217/18);
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of 23 May 2017 imposing a disciplinary measure on the appellant;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the EEAS to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      The appellant asks the Court to set aside the judgment of 10 September 2019 (T-217/18), in which the General Court dismissed his action for annulment and ordered him to pay the costs.
      In that regard, the appellant raises a single ground of appeal, alleging an error of law (paragraphs 28 to 53 of the judgment under appeal), in so far as the General Court interpreted Article 10(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations as allowing damage in respect of which compensation has already been paid to be taken into account in order to justify imposing a stricter disciplinary measure on a civil servant as compared to the measure recommended by the Disciplinary Committee.