EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-893/24 P: Appeal brought on 23 December 2024 by AL against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2024 in Case T-22/22, AL v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CN0893

62024CN0893

December 23, 2024
With Google you find a lot.
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/2025/1632

(Case C-893/24 P)

(C/2025/1632)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: AL (represented by: R. Rata, avocată)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal;

annul the Secretary General of the Council of the European Union decision of 27 September 2021 by which the appellant was removed from his post;

allow the appellant to raise in the future new related pleas in law as soon as new matters of law or facts will become available to him;

raise any motion of public interest as it considers fit;

order the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the appellant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.

First, the General Court erred in law and assessment in deeming inadmissible the appellant’s new plea in law alleging violation of Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Second, the General Court erred in law in rejecting as unfounded the plea in law alleging infringement of Article 22(1) of the Staff Regulations.

Third, the General Court erred in law in rejecting as unfounded the pleas in law alleging infringement of Article 10 of Annex IX of the Staff regulations.

Fourth, the General Court erred in law in rejecting as unfounded the pleas in law alleging breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of appellant’s dependent child.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1632/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia