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 62017TN0727

Case T-727/17: Action brought on 26 October 2017 — PP and Others v EEAS

IO C 22, 22.1.2018, pp. 45–46 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.1.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/45

Action brought on 26 October 2017 — PP and Others v EEAS

(Case T-727/17)

(2018/C 022/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: PP, PQ and UQ (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

—

Declare and rule,

—

the applicants’ calculation sheets of 3 February, 6 February and 20 March 2017 which were sent to them by email by EEAS Human Resources and, insofar as necessary, the salary slips by which payment of the education allowance for their children was granted;

—

and, finally, insofar as necessary, the decision of the Appointing Authority in the form of an email of 15 December 2016 informing them:

—

that the application for reimbursement of the education expenses above the ceiling for type B education allowance in respect of the 2016/2017 academic year was accepted, and

—

that each amount above the ceiling could not in any event exceed EUR 9 704,16;

—

Order the defendant to pay 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, raising a plea of illegality inasmuch as the decision taken by the defendant to cap the amount of the reimbursement of education expenses over the statutory ceiling, disputed in the present case, and the note of 15 April 2016 on which that was based and the Guidelines infringe the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Annex X thereof.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the individual decision is unlawful on the following grounds:

—

infringement of the principles of precaution, legitimate expectations, legal certainty and sound administration and of their acquired rights;

—

infringement of the right to family and the right to education;

—

infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination;

—

failure to weigh up the interests and lack of observance of the principle of proportionality of the measure adopted.
Top