CELEX: 62021CN0773
Language: en
Date: 2021-12-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-773/21 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2021 by AV, AW against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2021 in Case T-43/20, AV and AW v Parliament

28.3.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 138/12
            
         
      Appeal brought on 9 December 2021 by AV, AW against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2021 in Case T-43/20, AV and AW v Parliament
      (Case C-773/21 P)
      (2022/C 138/11)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellants: AV, AW (represented by: J. Martins, avocat)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellants claim that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  declare the appeal admissible and well founded;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the judgment under appeal;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  dispose of the case itself by upholding the claims of the appellants put forward at first instance, including the claim that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs; or in the alternative
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the European Parliament to pay all the costs at first instance and on appeal.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of the rights of the defence and failure to comply with the duty to state reasons;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Inaccurate assessments of the facts and distortion of a number of items of evidence which led the General Court to err in law in the assessment of the facts;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Error of law in the interpretation of the applicable legislation.