Appeal brought on 30 January 2020 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 20 November 2019 in Case T-502/16, Stefano Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and Others v Commission

(Case C-54/20 P)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima, T.S. Bohr and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Stefano Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, as heir of Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, Anne Jeanne Cécile Magdalena Maria Sintobin, as heir of Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, Maria Letizia Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, as heir of Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, Carlo Amedeo Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, Giustina Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, Tommaso Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and Filiberto Missir Mamachi di Lusignano

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court ordered the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered by Ms Maria Letizia Missir and Mr Stefano Missir following the death of Mr Alessandro Missir;

dispose of the case itself and dismiss the action at first instance as inadmissible;

order Mr Stefano Missir and Ms Maria Letizia Missir to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on two grounds of appeal.

The first ground of appeal is divided into two parts. By the first part, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the concept of the person ‘to whom the Staff Regulations apply’. That part is directed against paragraphs 48 to 64 of the judgment under appeal. By the second part, the appellant claims, in the alternative, that the General Court erred in law by recognising the brother and sister of a deceased official as being entitled to receive compensation for non-material damage on the basis of the Staff Regulations. That part is directed against paragraphs 134 and 135 of the judgment under appeal.

By the second ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court failed to have regard for the obligation to state reasons when ordering the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the brother and sister of a deceased official as a result of the latter’s death. The second ground of appeal is directed against paragraphs 154 to 168, 171 to 172 and 181 of the judgment under appeal.

____________