Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62018TN0494

Case T-494/18: Action brought on 17 August 2018 — PO v EEAS

OJ C 381, 22.10.2018, p. 29–30 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.10.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/29

Action brought on 17 August 2018 — PO v EEAS

(Case T-494/18)

(2018/C 381/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PO (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

[Annul] the calculation slip dated 17 October 2017 which was sent to him by email on the same day by the EEAS Human Resources Department;

—

[Annul] the email of 16 January 2018 sent to him by the EEAS Human Resources Department confirming the absence of a legal basis to exceed the statutory ceiling for his son and daughter;

—

[Annul], in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint lodged on 17 January 2018 and notified to the applicant on 17 May 2018;

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging illegality, since the contested decision, the note of 15 April 2016 and the note of 22 September 2016 on which it is based, along with the Guidelines, infringe the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Annex X thereto.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of the individual decision contested in the present case on the following grounds;

—

Infringement of the precautionary principle, the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, of the principle of sound administration and of their acquired rights;

—

Infringement of the right to family and of the right to education;

—

Infringement of the principles of equality and non-discrimination;

—

The absence of any balancing of interests and failure to observe the principle of proportionality of the adopted measure.
Top