—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament of 10 October 2018 in so far as it applies the retention clause in Article 100 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union to the applicant;

—

in so far as may be necessary, annul the decision of the European Parliament of 29 October 2019 to the extent that it rejects the applicant’s complaint of 8 January 2019;

—

order the applicant to pay all the costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 100 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘the CEOS’). The applicant claims that the application of the retention clause to her case infringes Article 100 of the CEOS, which must be interpreted in a restrictive manner and in accordance with the principle of free movement of workers provided for by Article 45 TFEU. Article 100 of the CEOS must also be interpreted in accordance with Articles 34 and 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and with Articles 12 and 13 of the European Social Charter. In the alternative, the applicant raises an objection of illegality against Article 100 of the CEOS, on the ground that that provision infringes Article 45 TFEU, Articles 34 and 35 of the Charter and Articles 12 and 13 of the European Social Charter.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in Article 1d of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and in Article 21 of the Charter. The applicant is of the opinion that the application of the retention clause to her deprives her, for a period of five years, from certain elements of the benefit of all invalidity benefits, and constitutes, moreover, discrimination prohibited by Article 1d of the Staff Regulations and Article 21 of the Charter.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of the duty of care. The applicant claims that the administration failed to fulfil its duty to have regard for the welfare of staff, even though that duty was enhanced on account of the member of staff in question having a fragile state of health.