Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/18

—

(Case C-29/22 P)

(2022/C 109/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: KS and KD (represented by: J. Stojsavljevic-Savic, Solicitor, F. Randolph QC and P. Koutrakos, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—allow the appeal, set aside the order under appeal and grant the relief sought before the General Court;

—alternatively, allow the appeal and remit the case to the General Court for final determination; and

—order the respondents to pay the costs of this appeal, proceedings before the General Court and proceedings before the Human Rights Review Panel of EULEX.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on the ground that the General Court erred in law by concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the action that the appellants had brought seeking reparation for the damage they have suffered as a result of the violation of their fundamental human rights by the respondents. The ground of appeal is divided in four parts.

First, the General Court erred in law by interpreting broadly the CFSP (European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy) exclusion laid down in the last sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) TEU and the first paragraph of Article 275 TFEU.

Second, the General Court erred in law by misapplying the judgment of 6 October 2020, Bank Refah Kargaran v Council (C-134/19 P, EU:C:2020:793).

Third, the General Court erred in law by misapplying the judgment of 25 March 2021, Carvalho and Others v Parliament and Council (C-565/19 P, not published, EU:C:2021:252).

Fourth, the General Court erred in law by failing to address material parts of the claim and not providing sufficient reasons for its decision.

—