Appeal brought on 24 February 2022 by DD against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 December 2021 in Case T-703/19, DD v FRA

(Case C-130/22 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: DD (represented by: N. Lorenz, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

consequently :

grant the Appellant compensation for the non-material prejudice suffered, as detailed in the application, estimated ex aequo et bono at 50.000 € ;

annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 21 December 2018 rejecting the Appellant’s request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;

if need be, annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 24 June 2019 rejecting the Appellant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

order the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the Appellant raises the following pleas and principal arguments in relation to the judgment under appeal:

Error of law, failure to establish the legally relevant facts, incomplete examination of the facts and distortion of evidence regarding the statement of facts.

Error of law, distortion of evidence, insufficient reasoning, violation of the principle of legal certainty and manifest error of appraisal regarding the first plea of unlawfulness.

Error of law, distortion of evidence, incomplete legal examination of the relevant facts, incomplete examination of the plea, insufficient reasoning regarding the second plea of unlawfulness.

Error of law, incomplete examination of the plea and insufficient reasoning regarding the fifth plea of unlawfulness.

Error of law, distortion of evidence, incomplete examination of the facts regarding the sixth plea of unlawfulness.

Error of law, incomplete examination of the plea, insufficient reasoning, plea that evidence used was not lawfully obtained or used regarding the eighth head of unlawfulness.

Error of law, distortion of evidence, incorrect legal classification of facts, insufficient reasoning regarding the ninth plea of unlawfulness.

Error of law, incomplete examination of the facts, insufficient reasoning and violation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union regarding the section on actual damage alleged and causal link.

____________