87Second, although an appellant is entitled to lodge an appeal relying, before the Court of Justice, on grounds which seek to criticise in law the merits of considerations of a legal nature arising from the judgment under appeal itself, in the sense that they constitute the grounds on which the General Court based some of its assessments, irrespective of the arguments put forward before it by the parties (see, to that effect, judgments of 29 November 2007, Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall and Others v Commission, C‑176/06 P, EU:C:2007:730, paragraph 17, and of 3 July 2025, Parliament v TC, C‑529/23 P, EU:C:2025:521, paragraph 82), it must be held that, in the present case, the judgment under appeal does not contain any passage relating to the existence of any joint and several liability on the part of Frontex. Moreover, the General Court cannot have implicitly addressed that question. That question concerns the determination of the damage for which compensation may be awarded to a person who has previously been recognised as a joint perpetrator of that damage. That question therefore has no bearing on the examination of the condition relating to the existence of a causal link between the alleged fault and the alleged damage, to which the General Court confined itself in the judgment under appeal.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.