This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0148
Case T-148/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by Adrian Barnett and Sven-Ole Mogensen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2016 in Case F-56/15, Barnett and Mogensen v Commission
Case T-148/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by Adrian Barnett and Sven-Ole Mogensen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2016 in Case F-56/15, Barnett and Mogensen v Commission
Case T-148/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by Adrian Barnett and Sven-Ole Mogensen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2016 in Case F-56/15, Barnett and Mogensen v Commission
IO C 191, 30.5.2016, p. 42–43
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
30.5.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 191/42 |
Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by Adrian Barnett and Sven-Ole Mogensen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2016 in Case F-56/15, Barnett and Mogensen v Commission
(Case T-148/16 P)
(2016/C 191/56)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellants: Adrian Barnett (Roskilde, Denmark), Sven-Ole Mogensen (Hellerup, Denmark) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought by the appellants
The appellants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-56/15, Barnett and Mogensen v Commission; |
And, giving judgment itself,
|
— |
annul the decisions contained in the pension receipts for the month of June 2014 by which the correction coefficient applicable to the appellants’ pensions is reduced from 1 January 2014, |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at both instances. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on two grounds of appeal.
|
1. |
First ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) erred in law by interpreting the clear and precise provisions of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) in the light of the alleged ‘real intention of the legislature’ as to the scope of the suspension of the update mechanism, in 2013 and 2014, of pensions and remuneration. In doing so, the CST made an interpretation contra legem of Article 65(4) of the Staff Regulations and of its rules for implementing, set out in Annex XI of those Staff Regulations. |
|
2. |
Second ground of appeal, alleging that the CST erred in law, in so far as the conditions as laid down in the Staff Regulations to carry out the intermediate update at issue, provided for in Annex XI of the Staff Regulations, had not been met and that the Commission, by carrying out that update, had misused its powers. After finding, in the judgment under appeal, that the previous correction coefficient had been incorrectly calculated in Council Regulation (EU) No 1416/2013 of 17 December 2013 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2013 the correction coefficients applied to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union, the CST erred in law by holding that the principle of equal treatment authorised the appointing authority to carry out the intermediate update at issue, contrary to the doctrine of withdrawal of illegal administrative acts that give rise to a right or similar benefits. |