Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/2735

29.4.2024

(Case C-136/24 P)

(C/2024/2735)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Alaa Hamoudi (represented by: F. Gatta, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the order under appeal;

—give final judgment on the merits, should the Court consider it has sufficient information from the information in the file;

—in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court to conduct a complete examination of the facts;

—order Frontex to pay the appellant’s costs in the first and second instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the first limb of the single ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law and in the legal characterization of the facts, in finding, in paragraph 57 of the order under appeal, that the evidence adduced by him, and which is already included in the court file, “is not manifestly capable of demonstrating, to the requisite legal standard, the events relating to the alleged incident of 28 and 29 April 2020”. In the framework of the first limb of the single ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the abovementioned errors in the legal characterization of evidence adduced by the appellant and which is already included in the court file, render legally erroneous the General Court’s finding, in paragraph 61 of the order under appeal, that the appellant “has not demonstrated the actual damage he alleges and, therefore, the condition relating to actual damage has clearly not been satisfied”, and well as its finding, in paragraph 62 of the order under appeal, that “the action must be dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law”.

In the second limb of the single ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court’s findings in paragraphs 61 and 62 of the order under appeal constitute a legal error and are equally vitiated by the General Court’s errors in the legal characterization of evidence and information requested by the appellant and which are not included in the court file. In not considering this evidence to be relevant and indispensable for it to conduct a complete examination of the facts relating to the condition of the actual damage, the General Court erred in the legal characterization of the facts.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2735/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

* * *