Dieses Dokument ist ein Auszug aus dem EUR-Lex-Portal.
Dokument C2006/281/80
Case F-88/06: Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Pantalis v Commission
Case F-88/06: Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Pantalis v Commission
Case F-88/06: Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Pantalis v Commission
OJ C 281, 18.11.2006, S. 44–45
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
18.11.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 281/44 |
Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Pantalis v Commission
(Case F-88/06)
(2006/C 281/80)
Language of the case: Greek
Parties
Applicant: Ioannis Pantalis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:
|
— |
annul that part of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 18 April 2006 which concerns: (a) the Appointing Authority's implied refusal to adapt the applicant's salary in accordance with the Staff Regulations in respect of a dependent child for whom he has alternating custody, (b) the Appointing Authority's refusal to pay the child's travel expenses to the applicant's place of origin, in accordance with the Staff Regulations; |
|
— |
order the retrospective payment of those sums with added interest; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a Commission official with alternating custody of a child whose mother is also an official of the European Communities, requested, on his return to Brussels after a period of secondment outside Europe, payment to him of the allowances and advantages relating to the child. The official dealing with the file called for the production of the original of a declaration of agreement between the former spouses on the readjustment of the applicant's rights in the present case. Since that declaration was only produced by email, the authorities did not grant the applicant's requests.
In support of his action, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 67 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 7 and 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as interpreted by case-law. He submits, inter alia, that the authorities' discretion is not unlimited and they have a duty to comply with the principles of sound administration and proportionality. Also, the supporting documents required must be directly linked to the payment requested and they must be referred to by the applicable provisions, or they must be absolutely necessary in order to set the amount to be paid.