CELEX: 62020CN0162
Language: en
Date: 2020-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-162/20 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2020 by WV against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 29 January 2020 in Case T-471/18, WV v EEAS

28.9.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 320/4
            
         
      Appeal brought on 8 April 2020 by WV against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 29 January 2020 in Case T-471/18, WV v EEAS
      
      (Case C-162/20 P)
      (2020/C 320/05)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: WV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS)
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  Set aside the order of 29 January 2020 of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-471/18, in so far as it dismissed the present appellant’s initial action for annulment as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded in law, and ordered the appellant to pay the costs;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Order the original defendant to pay all of the costs, including the costs before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union in order for it to rule on the action.
               
            
         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
      
      The appellant submits that, in issuing the order under appeal, the General Court failed to have regard to the principle of unfettered evaluation of evidence and the concept of a body of consistent evidence and, therefore, failed to have regard to the rules relating to the burden of proof, in particular as regards the proof and evidence submitted by the appellant concerning the alleged infringement of Articles 1e and 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.
      The single ground of appeal raised by the appellant also alleges a denial of justice, discrimination, distortion of the facts by the order under appeal and manifest errors of assessment made by the General Court resulting in imprecise legal reasoning.