Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/3031

10.6.2025

(Case C-169/25 P)

(C/2025/3031)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: PV (represented by: D. Birkenmaier, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2024 in Case T-89/20;

—give a ruling on the present dispute and Case T-89/20, as provided for in Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice;

—order the defendant to pay the costs in Case C-169/25 P as well as all of the other costs relating to Case T-89/20.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant raises 12 grounds:

The first ground alleges a lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings due to the absence of an employment relationship from 26 June 2017 – a distortion on account of application of an ex tunc effect – resulting in the absence of any infringement of Article 86 of the Staff Regulations.

The second ground concerns infringement of Article 60 of the Staff Regulations as the main motivation for justifying the second revocation CMS 17/025, while it was Article 59 of the Staff Regulations that applied on account of the issuance of medical certificates.

The third ground alleges infringement of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations (prohibition on prejudicial effects being suffered in the event of a harassment complaint being made when the complainant has acted honestly) resulting in infringement of Articles 77 and 9(b) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

The fourth ground alleges infringement of the general principle of law ‘fraus omnia corrompit’ as a result of the use of a false signature in the recapitulative statement of debts of 21 September 2016 and in the disciplinary investigation CMS 17/025.

The fifth ground concerns infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, the inexistence of three contested debt letters and a wrongful recapitulative statement of debts of 21 September 2016.

The sixth ground is based on infringement of the rule of law ‘ne bis in idem’, of Article 50 of the Charter and of Article 9(3) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.

The seventh ground alleges infringement of Article 41 of the Charter – infringement of the principles of objective and subjective impartiality.

The eighth ground alleges another infringement of Article 41 of the Charter – failure to observe the reasonable period in the second disciplinary procedure CMS 17/025.

The ninth ground alleges infringement of Article 15 of the Charter and of the principle of the defence of non-performance following a distortion committed by the General Court.

The tenth ground alleges infringement of Article 48 of the Charter and of the presumption of innocence.

The eleventh ground relates to a procedural error as a result of an infringement of Article 6(2) of the DGE 2004 as regards the second disciplinary procedure CMS 17/025 and, consequently, an infringement of the principle of objective impartiality.

The twelfth ground alleges a breach of the right to a fair trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, infringement of Article 41(1) and Article 47 of the Charter and infringement of Article 18 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3031/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—