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 62018TN0180

Case T-180/18: Action brought on 12 March 2018 — VJ v EEAS

IO C 161, 7.5.2018, p. 69–70 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

7.5.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/69

Action brought on 12 March 2018 — VJ v EEAS

(Case T-180/18)

(2018/C 161/86)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VJ (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the calculation sheet forwarded to him by email of 22 June 2017 from the EEAS and, so far as necessary, the salary slip through which the payment of the education allowance for his children was/will be granted;

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, putting forward an objection of illegality, in so far as the contested decision, the note of 15 April 2016 on which it is based and the EEAS’s Guidelines infringe the Staff Regulations of Officials and Annex X thereto.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of the individual decision at issue. There are five parts to that plea.

—

First part, alleging infringement of the principles of diligence, of the protection of legitimate expectations, of legal certainty and of sound administration and of the applicant’s acquired rights.

—

Second part, alleging failure by the EEAS to comply with its obligations, its poor administration, and infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the applicant’s legitimate expectations.

—

Third part, alleging infringement of the right to found a family and the right to education.

—

Fourth part, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

—

Fifth part, alleging that in adopting the measure the EEAS failed to balance the interests involved and infringed the principle of proportionality.
Top