# C_2006237EN.01001902.xml

| 30.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/19

---

Action brought on 3 August 2006 — Manté v Council

(Case F-87/06)

(2006/C 237/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Thierry Manté (Woluwe Saint Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Council's Appointing Authority of 22 August 2005 refusing to grant the applicant the installation allowance and ordering its recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Council's Appointing Authority of 22 August 2005 refusing to grant the applicant the installation allowance and ordering its recovery;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant, as compensation for material damage suffered, an amount equivalent to the sums relating to the installation allowance which will have been recovered at the date of the judgment of the Tribunal, increased by the interest rate in force at that date; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant, as compensation for material damage suffered, an amount equivalent to the sums relating to the installation allowance which will have been recovered at the date of the judgment of the Tribunal, increased by the interest rate in force at that date;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant the token sum of 1 euro, as compensation for pain and suffering; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant the token sum of 1 euro, as compensation for pain and suffering;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant arrived in Brussels in 2004 as a national expert on secondment at the Council, and subsequently became an official at the same institution. The Council, after having granted him the installation allowance, decided that he was not entitled to it and ordered its recovery.

In support of his action, the applicant puts forward three pleas alleging:

| — | first, breach of his right to the installation allowance arising from the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Annexe VII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

first, breach of his right to the installation allowance arising from the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Annexe VII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | secondly, breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons arising from Articles 20(2) and 90(1) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons arising from Articles 20(2) and 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | thirdly, breach of the conditions referred to in the first paragraph of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations in so far as they relate to recovery of the installation allowance by the administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

thirdly, breach of the conditions referred to in the first paragraph of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations in so far as they relate to recovery of the installation allowance by the administration.

---