Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/25

—

(Case C-100/22 P)

(2022/C 237/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: KY (represented by: N. Maes, J.-N. Louis, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court of Justice should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 in Case T-433/20;

—giving judgement itself:

—declare the application admissible and well founded;

—annul the decision to reject the appellant’s request for repayment;

—order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant claims that, in examining its action for annulment, the General Court made a number of errors of law, arising mainly from confusion between an action for unjust enrichment and a hypothetical challenge of rules as regards the award of pension rights.

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law, in that the General Court found the existence of a legal basis for unjust enrichment, as well as a lack of reasoning for the contested decision.

The ground of appeal alleges an error of law on the part of the General Court as regards the application of the minimum subsistence figure rule.

The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that the General Court found an absence of impoverishment.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges infringement of EU law, the General Court having failed to take account of the case-law arising from the judgment of 18 September 2018, Barroso Truta and Others v Court of Justice of the European Union (T-702/16 P, EU:T:2018:557, paragraphs 104 to 106).

—