- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-615/22 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2022 by HV and HW against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2022 in Case T-864/19, AI and Others v ECDC
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0615
62022CN0615
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 482/8
—
(Case C-615/22 P)
(2022/C 482/12)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: HV and HW (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, avocates)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, AI and HY
Form of order sought
The appellants claim that the Court should:
—Set aside the judgment under appeal.
—Declare the appeal brought before the General Court to be well-founded insofar as it requested the annulment of the decision dated 11 February 2019 rejecting the appellants’ request for compensation of 11 October 2018, annul, if need be, the decision dated 10 September 2019 rejecting the appellants’ complaint of 10 May 2019 and award the appellants the payment of financial compensation for the material and moral prejudice they sustained.
—Award the reimbursement of the appellants’ incurred legal costs for both proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Breach of the principle of the duty of assistance as defined by Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union read or not in conjunction with the Manual for ECDC Confidential Counsellors. Error in law when defining the scope of such duty in the absence of a formal request for assistance. Breach of the duty to ensure healthy, safe and dignified working conditions.
Error in the legal characterisation of the facts by deciding that the elements of the file did not entail an obligation for the Defendant to provide assistance. Distortion of the facts and evidence.
—