Appeal brought on 20 January 2022 by Liam Jenkinson against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-602/15 RENV, Jenkinson v Council and Others

(Case C-46/22 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Liam Jenkinson (represented by: N. de Montigny, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service, Eulex Kosovo

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

uphold the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal;

dispose of the case and grant the form of order sought by the applicant at first instance;

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

order the respondents to pay all the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings and in each of the earlier proceedings (T-602/15; C-43/17 P; T-602/15 RENV).

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges misinterpretation of the claims and pleas put forward in that the General Court excluded from its review all principal claims based on a plea of illegality.

The second ground of appeal alleges a reduction of the factual and legal considerations set out by the applicant and therefore of the subject matter of the action in that the General Court exclusively analysed the applicant’s last post in the Eulex Kosovo Mission.

The third ground of appeal is directed against the judgment under appeal in so far as it rejected the first principal head of claim.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges misapplication of the principle of equal treatment between staff members of the Union and infringement of Article 336 TFEU, the General Court having reversed the intention of the EU legislature to offer minimum social security coverage to all employees. In the appellant’s view, the General Court also infringed the concept of the rule of law by excluding all non-contractual liability of the defendants.

The fifth ground of appeal is directed against the rejection, on grounds of inadmissibility, of the third head of claim put forward in the alternative at first instance. In any event, the appellant submits that the General Court should have raised of its own motion certain pleas involving matters of public policy and analysed the merits of the case.

____________