EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/182/77
Case T-191/05: Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Viviane Le Maire against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-191/05: Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Viviane Le Maire against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-191/05: Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Viviane Le Maire against the Commission of the European Communities
OJ C 182, 23.7.2005, p. 41–41
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
23.7.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 182/41 |
Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Viviane Le Maire against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-191/05)
(2005/C 182/77)
Language of the case: French
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 May 2005 by Viviane Le Maire, residing in Evere (Belguim), represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
1. |
annul the implied decision of 5 September 2004, by which the Commission refused to grant the applicant the daily subsistence allowances following her entry into service; |
|
2. |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in these proceedings objects to the Appointing Authority's refusal to grant her the daily subsistence allowances provided for in Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. It is apparent from the documents annexed to the application that the reason for that refusal is the fact that the period of 120 days referred to in paragraph 2(a) of that provision was exceeded in the present case.
In support of her claims, the applicant argues:
|
— |
breach of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in the versions of that text before and after 1 May 2004, to the extent that the administration made her subject to requirements which are not provided for by that provision, |
|
— |
breach of the principles of sound administration, prohibition on arbitrary conduct and abuse of power, by requiring the applicant to produce evidence that she was renting a house, |
|
— |
breach of the obligation to state reasons for a measure, |
|
— |
breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, |
|
— |
breach of the duty to have regard to the interests of officials. |