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 62019TN0249

    Case T-249/19: Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Karpeta-Kovalyova v Commission

    OJ C 187, 3.6.2019, p. 87–88 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    3.6.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 187/87

    Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Karpeta-Kovalyova v Commission

    (Case T-249/19)

    (2019/C 187/94)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Marina Karpeta-Kovalyova (Woluwe Saint Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul both challenged decisions so that the European Commission reevaluates the applicant’s status and grant her the expatriation allowance, the daily subsistence allowance, the installation allowance, the travel costs on taking up duty and the removal expenses;

    —

    order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings.

    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 a false interpretation of article 4(1) (a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulation concerning the definition of the habitual residence, given that the contested decisions disregard the diplomatic status of the applicant’s spouse covering the most of the critical period of 5 years ending six months before she entered the service and because they took into account interim contracts the applicant has had, while her family returned back to their home country.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the contested decisions since they don’t take into account facts that undeniably and beyond any assessment prove the removal of the entire household from Brussels back to the home country of the applicant, namely on the basis of the unsubstantiated assumptions.
    Top