—

Declare and rule:

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that the Parliament made an incorrect interpretation of that provision by adopting the decision not to continue to pay expatriation allowance to the applicant.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the lack of competence of the Parliament to adopt the contested decision, since the interinstitutional transfer of an official does not constitute a new recruitment and, in consequence, the Parliament cannot use the applicant’s transfer as a pretext to determine, for a second time, his right to the expatriation allowance.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and of the earlier decision of the Court of Auditors determining the applicant’s rights, since any administrative act adopted by an institution enjoys a presumption of legality and since, in the present case, the earlier decision of the Court of Auditors gave right to legitimate expectations on the part of the applicant that he would receive the expatriation allowance for as long as he continued to be posted to Luxembourg.