- 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-236/25 P: Appeal brought on 27 March 2025 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 January 2025 in Case T-1093/23, AH v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025CN0236
62025CN0236
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 series
—
C/2025/3864
21.7.2025
(Case C-236/25 P)
(C/2025/3864)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. S. Bohr and L. Hohenecker, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings: AH
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-1093/23;
—refer the case back to the General Court; and
—reserve the costs of these proceedings.
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on two grounds of appeal:
(1)The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in the interpretation of Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’; paragraphs 34 to 42, 44 to 48, 53 and 60 of the judgment under appeal).
(a)By the first part, the Commission disputes the General Court’s analysis of existing case-law and the finding it drew from that analysis. The General Court incorrectly found that the appellant’s situation in the present case was not the same as that of the applicant in Quadri di Cardano v Commission (1).
(b)By the second part, the Commission disputes the finding that there was continuity between the appellant’s contracts. The General Court incorrectly failed to attach any importance to the fact that the appellant had changed employers.
(2)The second ground of appeal alleges a breach of the General Court’s obligation to state reasons for its judgments (paragraphs 34 and 38, 46 to 48, 53 and 60 of the judgment under appeal). The General Court has not given any valid reasons for not following the interpretation previously given by the Courts of the European Union to Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, other than referring to the allegedly different situation of the applicants in the cases on which the Court had already ruled, compared to the situation of the appellant in the present case.
—
Judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 July 2018, Quadri di Cardano v Commission (T-273/17, EU:T:2018:480).
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3864/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—