—

Annul the Commission’s decision dated 15 December 2023 informing the applicant that he was not entitled to get the resettlement allowance and the weighting factor during his stay in Sweden when he retired from the Commission;

—

Annul the Commission’s decision dated 27 March 2024, and if need be, the Commission’s decision dated 8 May 2024, informing the applicant that the Commission was recovering the alleged undue payments;

—

If need be, annul the Commission’s decision dated 14 October 2024 rejecting the applicant’s complaints;

—

Order the Commission to compensate the applicant for his material and moral damages;

—

Order the Commission to pay all the costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of appreciation, the breach of Article 20 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and Article 6 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as well as the breach of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations.

—

In the disputed decisions, the Commission made a manifest error of appreciation and breached Article 20 of Annex XIII and Article 6 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, by alleging that the applicant was not entitled to get the resettlement allowance and the weighting factor, despite the fact that the applicant provided evidence of the establishment of his residence in Sweden. To justify its position, the Commission mainly refers to the Swedish authorities’ and courts’ decision and judgments refusing to register the applicant in the population register.

—

It is further argued that the Commission also breached Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and made a manifest error of appreciation in its disputed decisions because the conditions for recovering the alleged undue payments were not met: firstly, the applicant was entitled to get the payments during his stay in Sweden; and secondly, assuming that these payments were illegal, the illegality of these payments does not appear ‘so obvious’.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the breach of an autonomous concept of EU law and breach of the rules of interpretation.

—

In the disputed decisions, the Commission breached an autonomous concept of EU law and the rules of interpretation because it mainly refers to the national authorities’ and courts’ decision and judgments denying the applicant the right to be registered on the population register: therefore, the Commission does not interpret the term ‘residence’ in light of EU Law and the EU Staff Regulations, but in light of national law.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the breach of the right to sound administration (duty to provide reasons, right to have his affairs handled within a reasonable period of time, duty to act diligently, duty of care and right to be heard).

—

The Commission does not, it is argued, provide sufficient reasons for the disputed decisions.

—

The Commission did not process the applicant’s file within a reasonable timeframe: this dispute has lasted over two years, due to the fact that the Commission’s departments (PMO and the appointing authority) did not communicate and/or agree on the applicant’s entitlements. Due to this lack of communication/agreement, the applicant was forced to submit numerous new complaints each time.

—

The Commission breached its duty of care because it does not appear in the file that it took into consideration the applicant’s interests before adopting the disputed decisions, despite the serious financial consequences of these decisions on the applicant’s situation and his old age.

—

The Commission also breached the applicant’s right to be heard because it did not invite the applicant to provide his observations before the adoption of the decision of 15 December 2023.