24.1.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/8

—

(Case C-587/21 P)

(2022/C 37/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: DD (represented by: N. Lorenz, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety,

—consequently,

—annul the decision of the Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) dated 19 November 2018 rejecting the applicant's request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;

—if need be, annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 12 June 2018, received on 13 June 2018, rejecting the complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations directed by the applicant against the above decision of 19 November 2019;

—grant the applicant compensation for the sustained non-material damage, as detailed in this appeal, estimated ex aequo et bono at 100 000 €;

—order the FRA to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Error of law and distortion of evidence regarding the statement of facts.

Error of law and violation of the principle of legal certainty regarding the first head of unlawfulness.

Error of law, violation of res iudicata, insufficient reasoning, failure to rule on appellant’s head of claim, distortion of evidence regarding the second head of unlawfulness.

Error of law, manifest error of appraisal and insufficient reasoning regarding the third head of unlawfulness.

Error of law, distortion of evidence, manifest error of appraisal, plea that General Court acted ultra vires and ultra petita, plea alleging that the General Court wrongly rejected the appellants' offer of production of a document on request which was material to the case and insufficient reasoning regarding the fourth head of unlawfulness.

Error of law, insufficient reasoning, wrong legal classification of facts, distortion of evidence and manifest error of appraisal regarding the fifth head of unlawfulness.

Error of law, distortion of evidence, failure to rule on appellant’s head of claim, wrong legal classification, plea that GC acted ultra petita, plea alleging that GC wrongly rejected the appellants' request to order production of a document which was material to the case, incomplete examination of the application and of the plea of harassment raised by the applicant regarding the sixth head of unlawfulness.

Error of law regarding the section on actual damage alleged and causal link.

—