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 62018TN0379

    Case T-379/18: Action brought on 22 June 2018 — WI v Commission

    OJ C 341, 24.9.2018, p. 16–17 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    22/06/2018
    Date lodged:
    22/06/2018
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    French
    Type of procedure:
    Staff cases
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    24.9.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 341/16

    Action brought on 22 June 2018 — WI v Commission

    (Case T-379/18)

    (2018/C 341/28)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: WI (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decisions;

    —

    order the payment of a surviving spouse’s pension to [WI];

    —

    order the European Commission to pay the costs

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of his action challenging the decision of the European Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) dated 16 August 2017 refusing to grant the applicant a survivor’s pension, and the confirmatory decision, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the term ‘surviving spouse’ and infringement of Article 1d(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and Article 17 of Annex VIII thereto, in so far as the Commission based its reasoning on a restrictive and erroneous interpretation of the term ‘surviving spouse’ provided for by the Staff Regulations for the purposes of rejecting the applicant’s request for recognition of his status as a surviving spouse.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials in so far as, according to the applicant, the Commission should have taken into account the exceptional circumstances of the case in order to interpret Article 17 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations as meaning that the applicant may be entitled as of right to a pension by way of his status as a surviving spouse.
    Top