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 62017TN0273

    Case T-273/17: Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Quadri di Cardano v Commission

    OJ C 221, 10.7.2017, p. 35–36 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    10.7.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 221/35

    Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Quadri di Cardano v Commission

    (Case T-273/17)

    (2017/C 221/50)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Alessandro Quadri di Cardano (Schaerbeek, Belgium) (represented by: N. De Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the PMO’s decision of 19 July 2016 setting his individual rights at the time of taking up employment at the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA), in that it refuses to award him an expatriation allowance of 16 % pursuant to Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and, consequently, implies that related rights, in particular annual travel expenses, are not to be granted;

    —

    order the defendant to bear 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 failure to have regard for the discussions and negotiations relating to the period preceding the reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials and, in particular, failure to respect legitimate expectations, infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty of the applicant, as well as disregard for his acquired rights, by reason of a suddenly different analysis of the documentation used to determine his individual rights.

    2.

    Second plea in law, relating to the temporary employment contract governed by Belgian law invoked by the Commission as justification for the view that the applicant established his residence in Belgium during a period of employment for a private employer. This plea in law is divided into three parts:

    —

    first part, alleging that the Commission misused and abused its powers by attempting to exclude any hierarchical relationship between itself and the applicant during his period of employment as an agency staff member in order to be able to deny the existence of employment with an international organisation, which would in principle have to result in the postponement of any determination as to whether the conditions required by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations had been satisfied;

    —

    second part, alleging an error in law, infringement of the Belgian statutory provisions relating to temporary employment contracts and misuse of powers by the Commission;

    —

    third part, alleging a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the principle of proportionality and infringement of the principle of sound administration.
    Top