CELEX: 62020CN0464
Language: en
Date: 2020-09-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-464/20 P: Appeal brought on 26 September 2020 by KF against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2020 in Case T-619/19, KF v SatCen

14.12.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 433/29
            
         
      Appeal brought on 26 September 2020 by KF against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2020 in Case T-619/19, KF v SatCen
      (Case C-464/20 P)
      (2020/C 433/37)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellants: KF (represented by: A. Kunst, Rechtsanwältin)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen)
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the order under appeal (first head of claim);
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  uphold the application except for the fourth head of claim (second head of claim); and consequently
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of the Director of SatCen of 3 July 2019 to restart the administrative investigation and the decision of the Director confirming that decision subsequent to an internal complaint;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order SatCen to pay the applicant a fair compensation out of the judgment of the General Court’s in Case T-286/15, KF v SatCen (‘the judgment to be implemented’), as the only possibility capable of reversing the illegalities therein, restoring the applicant’s legal position, implementing the judgment;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order SatCen to compensate the applicant for the material and immaterial harm suffered as a result of the restart of the administrative investigation, assessed provisionally on an ex aequo et bono at €30 000;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the substance;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds:
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of Article 266 TFEU and the appellant’s right to full compliance with the judgment to be implemented in that the General Court erred in law by holding that the decision to restart the administrative investigation was a preparatory act not adversely affecting the interests of KF.
                  It was a decision to not properly implement a judgment pursuant to Article 266 TFEU, also taking into account the specific circumstances of KF’s case, and thereby it affected her interests immediately and directly.
                  The General Court erred in law by failing to take into account the specific circumstances of KF’s case, including irreversible illegalities in the initial administrative investigation.
                  The General erred in law by failing to recognize that:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              the SatCen is objectively not capable of reversing the illegalities by restarting the administrative investigation, given also how unduly witnesses in the initial administrative investigation were influenced and the serious attacks on KF’s good repute and professional reputation as found to have occurred in the judgment to be implemented;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the guarantees of a fair procedure cannot be provided and
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              there is a breach of the reasonable time principle.
                           
                        
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of Article 266 TFEU and a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in that the General Court erred in law by disregarding and failing to hold that:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              the discretion in properly implementing judgments can be reduced, as in KF’s case, to one possible measure, which is compensating her fairly for the illegalities found to have occurred in the judgment to be implemented;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              any final decision which would conclude the entire process and any decision paving the way to it would necessarily and obligatorily have the same illegality as identified by the judgment to be implemented;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              compliance with the judgment poses special difficulties;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              KF had legitimate expectations to be compensated fairly;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the payment of a fair compensation is the only way to reverse the illegalities found to have occurred.
                           
                        
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of Articles 268 and 340(2) TFEU in that the General Court erred in law by holding that the action for compensation for non-contractual liability regarding the decision to restart the administrative investigation is inadmissible. KF submitted an action, which is admissible, consequently the related action for compensation is admissible.