Action brought on 12 February 2025 – Luise v European Public Prosecutor’s Office

(Case T-103/25)

(C/2025/2098)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Amelia Luise (Palermo, Italy) (represented by: F. Calvo and V. Manno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO)

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the application, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

The applicant alleges infringement of Article 96(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 which, with a view to not penalising the European Delegated Prosecutor with respect to his or her colleagues who are at the same grade on a national level, enshrines and guarantees equal economic treatment between European and national magistrates, in the sense that what the former are entitled to cannot be less than what the latter are guaranteed.

The applicant claims that the difference in treatment became clear when comparing the assignment [to another district] as provided for by the ordinamento giudiziario italiano (the Law governing the organisation of the Italian courts) to the above assignment tout court of the matters relating to the districts of Reggio Calabria and Catanzaro.

The applicant observes, in particular, that that infringement was committed and occurred the moment the applicant, who was assigned to the Palermo office and then simultaneously to the districts of Reggio Calabria and Catanzaro to relieve personnel shortages, was not given the right to receive the supplementary allowance paid to national magistrates under Article 23 of Decree-Law No 341/2000.

She suggests, furthermore, that the above-mentioned supplementary allowance corresponds to the additional top-up amount referred to in the Conditions of Employment adopted by the College of the EPPO by Decision 001/2020.

She notes that the reasoning, adopted by the College of the EPPO in support of the measure rejecting her claim, is not clear and is certainly not convincing.

Precisely due to the irrefutable facts referred to, without prejudice to the above pleas and arguments, and in the unlikely event that the applicant should not be entitled to receive payment of the supplementary allowance for national magistrates provided for under Article 23 of Decree-Law 341/2000, as calculated by the Ministry of Justice, Amelia Luise should be paid, without a doubt, for the work carried out at the EPPO’s office in Catanzaro, a sum of money to be quantified, as the case may be in equity, taking into consideration the number of files (17) and/or the matters she dealt with in the context of the abovementioned additional workload.