Appeal brought on 31 October 2025 by Philippe Latombe against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 3 September 2025 in Case T-553/23, Latombe v Commission

(Case C-703/25 P)

(C/2025/6610)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Philippe Latombe (represented by: J.-B. Soufron and T. Lamballe, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Ireland, United States of America

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on four grounds.

First ground of appeal

The first ground of appeal alleges that the General Court made a manifest error of assessment, erred in law, failed to state sufficient reasons and distorted the evidence in the case file in rejecting the plea in law in the application alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 45(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1, ‘the GDPR’), on the ground that the rules for appointing and dismissing the judges of the Data Protection Review Court (‘the DPRC’) do not call those safeguards into question.

Second ground of appeal

The second ground of appeal alleges that the General Court erred in law in holding that, in order to assess whether the requirements under the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights are satisfied, it is sufficient to determine whether the text establishing a tribunal and defining its operating rules provides for sufficient safeguards to ensure its independence and its impartiality as regards other powers, including the executive, and that it is not necessary to assess the formal nature of that text in order to reject the second part of the third plea in law in the application, according to which the DPF adequacy decision infringes the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 45(2) of the GDPR because the DPRC is not a tribunal previously established by law.

Third ground of appeal

The third ground of appeal alleges that the General Court’s decision is vitiated by three errors of law made by the General Court in order to reject the second part of the second plea in law in the application, according to which the DPF adequacy decision infringes Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights because United States law does not render bulk collection of personal data subject to prior authorisation by a judicial or administrative authority, claiming that because:

Fourth ground of appeal

The fourth ground of appeal alleges that the General Court’s decision is vitiated by contradictory reasoning and an error of law because the General Court holds that it cannot be found that the power conferred on the President of the United States to update the list of specific objectives of bulk collection is contrary to the requirements identified by the ECtHR in the judgment of the ECtHR of 4 December 2015, Roman Zakharov v. Russia (CE:ECHR:2015:1204JUD004714306), in order to reject the third part of the second plea in law, according to which the DPF adequacy decision infringes Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights because Executive Order 14086 of 7 October 2022 gives the President of the United States power to authorise a secret update of the specific obligations relating to bulk collection.