# C_2006010EN.01003001.xml

| 14.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/30

---

Action brought on 9 November 2005 — Alessandro Cavallaro v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-406/05)

(2006/C 10/58)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Cavallaro (Rome, Italy) (represented by: Carlo Forte, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision ADMIN. B.2.-ABF/adm-D(05)18560 of the appointing authority (AIPN) of 10 August 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision ADMIN. B.2.-ABF/adm-D(05)18560 of the appointing authority (AIPN) of 10 August 2005;

| — | in the alternative, order time to start running again for the purposes of bringing an action for annulment of decisions ADMIN-B-3 No 10577 of 27 February 2002 and No 53089 of 14 November 2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, order time to start running again for the purposes of bringing an action for annulment of decisions ADMIN-B-3 No 10577 of 27 February 2002 and No 53089 of 14 November 2002;

| — | in the further alternative, declare admissible the plea of unlawfulness seeking a declaration that decisions ADMIN-B-3 No 10577 of 27 February 2002 and No 53089 of 14 November 2002 are inapplicable, allowing the applicant the right to payment of the sums relating to the expatriation allowance from 1 December 2001 and for the entire period of service with the European Commission in Brussels, including arrears and interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, declare admissible the plea of unlawfulness seeking a declaration that decisions ADMIN-B-3 No 10577 of 27 February 2002 and No 53089 of 14 November 2002 are inapplicable, allowing the applicant the right to payment of the sums relating to the expatriation allowance from 1 December 2001 and for the entire period of service with the European Commission in Brussels, including arrears and interest;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case appeals against the decision of the appointing authority of 10 August 2005, in which he was refused the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of the European Communities, and requests payment of the sums relating to such allowance to be allowed from 1 March 2005 and for the entire period of service with the Commission delegation in Rome.

It must be noted in that respect that back in 2002, immediately after being employed by the Commission, that authority refused the expatriation allowance of 16 % on the assumption that during the entire reference period for the calculation of the five years referred to in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the applicant had exercised his professional activities in Brussels.

The applicant was subsequently transferred to the office of the Commission delegation in Rome, and again asked for the benefit of that allowance. The present action is brought against the adverse decision in respect of that new request.

In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:

| — | misapplication of Article 4(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

misapplication of Article 4(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | inconsistency of the statement of reasons and error in fact concerning the documentation supplied in respect of the 1990-1995 period. On that point, the applicant reiterates that he lived outside Italy from 1990 to 1995, and that he did not study in Italy between 1992 and 1995. In any event, the Commission's statements in the contested decision contradict the statements set out in the decisions of 2002; and |
| --- | --- |

—

inconsistency of the statement of reasons and error in fact concerning the documentation supplied in respect of the 1990-1995 period. On that point, the applicant reiterates that he lived outside Italy from 1990 to 1995, and that he did not study in Italy between 1992 and 1995. In any event, the Commission's statements in the contested decision contradict the statements set out in the decisions of 2002; and

| — | inconsistency of the statement of reasons concerning the presumption that from July 1990 to July 1995 the applicant lived in Italy. In that respect it is asserted that the mere declaration of the applicant, made at a time in which he was working as an auxiliary agent, that his place of recruitment was to be determined as Ariccia, in Italy, did not suffice to demonstrate his intention to remain living in that place uninterruptedly, developing normal social relations there. |
| --- | --- |

—

inconsistency of the statement of reasons concerning the presumption that from July 1990 to July 1995 the applicant lived in Italy. In that respect it is asserted that the mere declaration of the applicant, made at a time in which he was working as an auxiliary agent, that his place of recruitment was to be determined as Ariccia, in Italy, did not suffice to demonstrate his intention to remain living in that place uninterruptedly, developing normal social relations there.

---