Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62025CN0557

Case C-557/25 P: Appeal brought on 20 August 2025 by EO against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 June 2025 in Case T-368/24, EO v Parliament

OJ C, C/2025/6155, 24.11.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6155/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6155/oj

European flag

Official Journal
of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2025/6155

24.11.2025

Appeal brought on 20 August 2025 by EO against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 June 2025 in Case T-368/24, EO v Parliament

(Case C-557/25 P)

(C/2025/6155)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: EO (represented by: L. Levi, P. Baudoux, avocates)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the judgment under appeal;

—

consequently, grant the Appellant the benefit of his conclusions at first instance and, therefore:

—

annul the termination decision of 15 September 2023;

—

if need be, annul the decision of 17 April 2024 rejecting his administrative complaint;

—

condemn the Defendant to compensate the Appellant for the damage suffered;

—

order the Defendant to pay all the costs.

—

order the Defendant to pay all the costs of both the appeal and of the first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.

With the first ground for appeal, the Appellant submits that the General Court erred in law when interpreting Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.

2.

With the second ground for appeal, the Appellant contests the General Court’s findings on the manifest error of assessment. The Appellant claims that the General Court erred in law by failing to consider the plea regarding the breach of its duty to provide reasons, and by distorting the evidence.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6155/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

Top