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 62019TN0505

    Case T-505/19: Action brought on 12 July 2019 — DE v Parliament

    IO C 305, 9.9.2019, p. 63–64 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    9.9.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 305/63

    Action brought on 12 July 2019 — DE v Parliament

    (Case T-505/19)

    (2019/C 305/73)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: DE (represented by: T. Oeyen, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Parliament

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the European Parliament’s decision of 30 October 2018 refusing to grant the applicant adequate special leave to take care of his twin children newly born via surrogacy.

    —

    order the Parliament to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

    —

    By failing to grant the applicant birth leave rights which are equivalent to maternity leave and/or adoption leave, the contested decision violates the applicant’s fundamental rights of equal protection and non-discrimination, as enshrined in Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and Article 1(d) of the EU Staff Regulations. As homosexuals are the predominant group of parents making use of surrogacy, they are disproportionately negatively affected by the Parliament’s interpretation of the birth leave-related provisions of the EU Staff Regulations as reflected in the contested decision.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging breach of the right to protection of the applicant’s family life.

    —

    By failing to grant the applicant adequate special leave to take care of his newly born children, equivalent to maternity and/or adoption leave, the contested decision violates Article 8 ECHR, which protects the applicant’s right to family life, read in conjunction with Article 14 ECHR.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was taken in breach of the principle of good administration.

    —

    In particular, it is alleged that the defendant (i) failed to grant the applicant the right to be heard; and (ii) failed to give adequate reasons for its decision.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, a plea of illegality relating to the special leave provisions of the EU Staff Regulations as interpreted by the defendant in the contested decision.

    —

    For the same reasons as set forth in the first to third pleas above, it is argued that the defendant’s interpretation of Article 57 of the Staff Regulations, read in conjunction with Article 6 of Annex V to those Regulations, as reflected in the contested decision, to the effect that officials or other servants of the European Parliament who become parents of a child via surrogacy are not entitled to special leave equivalent to maternity and/or adoption leave, is illegal.

    5.

    Fifth plea in law, alleging an error in law and misapplication of Article 6 of Annex 2 to the EU Staff Regulations and of the European Parliament’s Internal Rules governing leave.

    —

    In the event that the Court holds that the applicant is not entitled to birth leave equivalent to that which is granted as maternity leave or adoption leave, the applicant submits that, as the father of twins, he is entitled to 20 days’ leave. This entitlement applies regardless of the legal mechanism through which the applicant gained parental responsibility.
    Top