Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/25

—

(Case C-781/22 P)

(2023/C 63/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: LE (represented by: M. Straus, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgement of the General Court on the request for annulment of or another ruling concerning the dispute in relation to the Decision C(2020)3988 final;

—refer the case back to the General Court for further proceedings on pleas and objections raised by LE, also on behalf of its linked parties, against and in relation to the contested Decision;

Alternatively

—rule or take an interlocutory judgement for hearing witnesses or providing evidence supporting the case prior to adjudicate in the main claims;

—set aside the judgement of the General Court on the request for annulment of or another ruling concerning the dispute in relation to the Decision C(2020)3988 final, and if so ascertained and adjudicated by the Court, to refer the case back to the General Court for further proceedings on pleas and objections against and in relation to the contested Decision;

More alternatively

—rule or take such other measures as the European Court of Justice shall deem just and appropriate.

In the procedural issue

—order the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the lawyer's fees on its part.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Applicant put forward four pleas in law, some of which consist of several parts. By these pleas, LE submits that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law by:

—basing its assessment of the substance of the contested decision on the statement of objections provided by the European Commission;

—applying excessively strict and incorrect rules of evidence to decisions;

—limiting the judicial review to be carried out by the General Court to the minimum;

—failing to observe the applicable legal criteria relating to the procedural legal principles and ignored legal principles, such as adversarial proceedings, principles of equal treatment, good administration, legitimate expectations and case law in favor of the Applicant;

—relying on alleged evidence that was not provided or submitted to Applicant prior to the Decision taken by the Commission.

—