Appeal brought on 2 March 2018 by CJ against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-692/16: CJ v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
(Case C-170/18 P)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: CJ (represented by: V. Kolias, Δικηγόρος)
Other party to the proceedings: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 in Case T-692/16 CJ v ECDC (ECLI:EU:T:2017:894) in whole;
consequently, in the event that the appeal is declared well founded, annul the new termination decision of 2 December 2015 and award the appellant the emoluments and monetary compensation claimed before the General Court plus statutory interest;
order the ECDC to pay all costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
First plea in law, alleging that the General Court misinterpreted his argument, distorted the evidence and erred in legally classifying the facts in holding that circumstances had not substantively changed between the date of issue of the annulled termination decision and that of the new termination decision so as to prevent ECDC from reissuing the annulled termination decision.
Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court misinterpreted his argument, failed to state sufficient reasons, erred in legally classifying the facts and misinterpreted Article 266 TFEU in holding that the new termination decision was not disproportional under Article 5(4) TEU.
Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court gave the scope of res judicata an overly extensive meaning.
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court:
misinterpreted the judgment of the Civil Tribunal in Joined Cases F-159/12 and F-161/12 CJ v ECDC and understood the resulting res judicata in an overly extensive manner,
misinterpreted Article 22a(3) of the Staff Regulations on the protection of whistleblowers by failing to give useful effect thereto.
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the General Court misinterpreted the rule on the noncontractual liability of the EU, subsidiarily erroneously legally classified the facts, when it held that the contested decision was not reasoned in a manner causing non-material damage to the appellant.
____________