Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/11

—

(Case C-111/22 P)

(2022/C 222/18)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Helene Hamers (represented by: Vasileios Spiridon Christianos, Alexandros Politis and Michail Rodopoulos, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2021 in Case T-159/20, Hamers v Cedefop, EU:T:2021:913,

—if need be, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment,

—order Cedefop to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject matter of the judgment under appeal was the harm suffered by the appellant due to acts and omissions of Cedefop before, during and subsequent to national criminal proceedings before the Greek judicial authorities, which concerned the regularity and lawfulness of the award of public contracts by Cedefop to third parties from 2001 to 2005.

The appellant raises two grounds of appeal and claims that the judgment under appeal:

—first, in paragraphs 55 to 61 and 83, contains an error of law in the interpretation of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), because, contrary to the General Court’s finding in those paragraphs, the appellant was not examined impartially by Cedefop and, moreover, the decision of the Cedefop Appeals Committee did not remedy the flaw in the decision of 3 July 2019. At the same time, on those grounds, the General Court gave inadequate reasons in the paragraphs referred to above.

—second, in paragraph 65, paragraphs 68 to 75 and paragraph 83, contains an error of law in the interpretation of the presumption of innocence relied on by the appellant pursuant to Article 48(1) of the Charter, which was also compounded by breach of the principle of sincere cooperation within the meaning of Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union. At the same time, on those grounds, the General Court gave inadequate reasons in the paragraphs referred to above.

—