CELEX: 62021CN0447
Language: en
Date: 2021-07-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-447/21 P: Appeal brought on 20 July 2021 by Petrus Kerstens against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 May 2021 in Case T-672/20 Kerstens v Commission

25.10.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 431/8
            
         
      Appeal brought on 20 July 2021 by Petrus Kerstens against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 May 2021 in Case T-672/20 Kerstens v Commission
      (Case C-447/21 P)
      (2021/C 431/06)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: Petrus Kerstens (represented by: C. Mourato, avocat)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant submits that the Court of Justice should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the order of the General Court of 17 May 2021, Kerstens v Commission (T-672/20);
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  declare the action at issue admissible;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  find that the case cannot proceed on the merits, and refer the matter back to the General Court so that it may rule on the merits of the dispute;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  reserve the costs.
               
            
         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
      
      The four grounds of appeal relate to the admissibility of the action brought by the applicant at first instance.
      By the first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that by declaring inadmissible the action seeking annulment of the decisions of 20 and 31 January 2020, the General Court infringed the rules on the burden of proof and Article 91(3) of the Staff Regulations, and distorted the facts and evidence.
      By the second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court provided an insufficient statement of reasons for the order under appeal.
      By the third ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court gravely infringed the principle of legal certainty in determining the date of notification of the contested act.
      By his fourth and final ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment of officials in determining the date of notification of acts addressed to them, to which there a judicial follow-up is necessary.