13.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/33

—

declare the action admissible and well founded;

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant the amount of EUR 112 202 476.69, together with the associated and consubstantial penalties, amounting, on a monthly and cumulative basis, to 1.83 % as from December 1994 until the date of settlement, by way of compensation for the non-material and material damage suffered by the applicant as established in the application in Case T-429/09, Campailla v Commission, which is already in the General Court’s possession;

—

uphold the applicant’s express request that a hearing be ordered in order to allow him to plead his case before the General Court;

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs of the present proceedings, including the lawyers’ fees which it obliged the applicant to incur and which will be quantified at the end of the proceedings;

—

reserve to the applicant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions.

1.

First plea in law, based on the unconditional receipt by the Registry of the Court of Justice of the action that had been directly brought by the applicant without being represented by a lawyer.

2.

Second plea in law, based on the failure to draw the applicant’s attention to the existence of a potential problem due to the lodging of an action without legal representation, and on the divergent treatment accorded to the applicant in comparison with other persons in an identical situation.

3.

Third plea in law, based on the penalty allegedly imposed on the applicant without any legal basis, in that his appeal was declared inadmissible.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular the denial of justice to which he was entitled, consisting of a deprival of human dignity at variance with Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging non-observance of the rights to effective legal protection and to a fair trial in that the defendant did not take into account the applicant’s particular situation and thus failed to take measures guaranteeing him observance of those rights.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging non-observance by the defendant of the right to good administration in unilaterally issuing its order dismissing the applicant’s appeal in Case C-265/11 P.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s property rights, in so far as the dispute underlying the proceedings initiated against the European Commission before the Court of Justice of the European Union was designed to have the applicant’s property rights recognised in order to obtain compensation. In that regard, the applicant criticises the Court of Justice for having, in dismissing the appeal, confirmed and definitively rendered res judicata the false decision which was imposed by the General Court by its order in Case T-429/09.