19.12.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 482/5

—

(Case C-595/22 P)

(2022/C 482/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Jean-Marc Colombani (represented by: N. de Montigny, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 July 2022 in Case T-129/21, Colombani v EEAS;

Hear the case and:

annul the EEAS decision of 17 April 2020 rejecting the appellant’s application for the post of Director for North Africa and Middle East (vacancy notice 2020/48);

annul the EEAS decision of 6 July 2020 rejecting the appellant’s application for the post of Head of the Delegation of the European Union to Canada (vacancy notice 2020/134);

Order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs incurred by the appellant on appeal and at first instance.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds.

By his first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court committed several errors when it ruled that the application for annulment of the decision of 17 April 2020 was inadmissible.

When it considered that the appellant, by way of the mutual agreement of 9 February 2021 concluded with the EEAS in Case T-507/20, Colombani v EEAS, agreed to waive the right to challenge the decision rejecting his application for the post of Director, the General Court (i) erred in law in its interpretation of the agreement; (ii) ruled infra petita; (iii) failed to have regard to the appellant’s interest in obtaining an annulment of the contested decision; and (iv) erred in its analysis of the conditions to be fulfilled in order to claim that there was a defect in the appellant’s consent at the time when the agreement was signed.

By his second ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court infringed his procedural rights by limiting the examination of the merits of the case to the decision of 6 July 2020 alone, thereby excluding an analysis of the substantive pleas in so far as they also concern the decision of 17 April 2020.

—