Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/2508

(Case C-858/24 P)

(C/2025/2508)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: VC (represented by: J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo and S. Centeno Huerta, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—uphold the first ground of appeal and, consequently, set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety and annul the contested decision in its entirety;

—in the event that it does not uphold the first ground of appeal, uphold the third ground of appeal and, consequently, set aside the judgment under appeal and annul Article 4 of the contested decision;

—in the event that it does not uphold either the first ground of appeal or the third ground of appeal, uphold the second ground of appeal and, consequently, set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety and refer the case back to the General Court; and

—in the event that any of the above pleas are upheld, order EU-OSHA to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

First ground of appeal

VC complains that an error was made in the interpretation of Article 136(1) and (2) of the Financial Regulation (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) in the judgment under appeal, in the light of its wording, its legislative history, its context and its purpose, where it states that, if there is no final judgment or final decision, the EU authority is not bound by administrative or judicial decisions taken at national level.

Moreover, the interpretation of Article 136(1) and (2) of the Financial Regulation, put forward by VC in the first ground of appeal, is correct in view of the principles of the coordinated fight against fraud (Article 325 TFEU), sincere cooperation between authorities (Article 4(3) TEU), effective judicial protection (Article 47 of the Charter) and the rule of law (Article 19(1) TEU).

Second ground of appeal

VC complains that the judgment under appeal infringed Article 143(9) of the Financial Regulation on the review of remedial measures, on the ground that the General Court lacks unlimited jurisdiction to carry out that examination, first, because the examination of remedial measures forms part of the assessment of the conduct and not of the assessment of the penalty and, second, because the conduct is not limited to the infringement established by the national authority and its constituent elements, but includes other subsequent elements.

However, Article 136(1)(c)(ii) of the Financial Regulation defines the conduct giving rise to the exclusion decision without mentioning the remedial measures which do not form part of the infringement but make it possible to avoid the penalty being imposed. Moreover, the absence of remedial measures does not infer the occurrence or reoccurrence of any professional misconduct and therefore, does not constitute an infringement or an offending conduct.

Third ground of appeal

VC complains that the judgment under appeal misinterpreted Article 140 of the Financial Regulation on the publication of the EU-OSHA decision (Article 4) as, first, the need to reinforce the deterrent effect of the exclusion is not inherent in the seriousness of the conduct and second, the damage to the appellant’s reputation is not inherent in the publication of the exclusion.

—

Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012) (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2508/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—