Questo documento è un estratto del sito web EUR-Lex.
Documento 62022CN0444
Case C-444/22 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2022 by Leon Leonard Johan Veen against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2022 in Case T-436/21 Veen v Europol
Case C-444/22 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2022 by Leon Leonard Johan Veen against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2022 in Case T-436/21 Veen v Europol
Case C-444/22 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2022 by Leon Leonard Johan Veen against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2022 in Case T-436/21 Veen v Europol
OJ C 340, 5.9.2022, pagg. 22–23
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Data del documento:
- 05/07/2022
- Data di presentazione:
- 05/07/2022
- Autore:
- Court of Justice
- Forma:
- Judicial information
- Lingua facente fede:
- Slovak
- Tipo di procedimento:
- Appeal, Action for damages
- Link
- Seleziona l'insieme dei documenti che citano il presente documento
- Pronunce che interessano gli atti:
-
- Request to review the judgment 62021TJ0436
- Link
- Descrittore EUROVOC:
|
5.9.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 340/22 |
Appeal brought on 5 July 2022 by Leon Leonard Johan Veen against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2022 in Case T-436/21 Veen v Europol
(Case C-444/22 P)
(2022/C 340/29)
Language of the case: Slovak
Parties
Appellant: Leon Leonard Johan Veen (represented by: M. Mandzák, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation
Form of order sought
|
— |
Set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety; |
|
— |
Refer the case back to the General Court for further proceedings; |
|
— |
Declare that the General Court must rule as to the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appeal in its entirety is made up of four grounds of appeal. The General Court erred in its legal assessment of the case and misapplied substantive law, in particularly so far as concerns the defendant’s liability for harm and its obligation to process personal data in the context of cross-checks. The General Court also incorrectly found that there was a lack of a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the harmful event, and gave inadequate reasons for the judgment under appeal.
