# C_2018341EN.01002301.xml

| 24.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/23

---

Action brought on 25 July 2018 — Zotkov v Commission

(Case T-457/18)

(2018/C 341/34)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Rosen D. Zotkov (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by N. Stankov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision No Ares (2018)2294884 of 30 April 2018 and review it in connection with the applicant’s claim concerning a financial allowance for his parents, after correction of the financial calculation in accordance with the pleas in law and arguments put forward by the applicant |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision No Ares (2018)2294884 of 30 April 2018 and review it in connection with the applicant’s claim concerning a financial allowance for his parents, after correction of the financial calculation in accordance with the pleas in law and arguments put forward by the applicant

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | The first plea in law is based on the defendant’s interpretation (and its financial calculation based on that interpretation) of Commission Decision No 50-2004/28.5.2004 in connection with the practical application of the decision in so far as it accounts for residential property, an interpretation and calculation which the applicant considers to be incorrect






  — | deficiencies in the interpretation from the point of view of the specific nature (financial and economic) of the matter regulated by the Commission decision, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The first plea in law is based on the defendant’s interpretation (and its financial calculation based on that interpretation) of Commission Decision No 50-2004/28.5.2004 in connection with the practical application of the decision in so far as it accounts for residential property, an interpretation and calculation which the applicant considers to be incorrect

—

deficiencies in the interpretation from the point of view of the specific nature (financial and economic) of the matter regulated by the Commission decision,

| — | interpretation based on objectively impossible assumptions, |
| --- | --- |

—

interpretation based on objectively impossible assumptions,

| — | internal discrepancies between separate parts of the Commission decision, examined together, and not independently, arising from the defendant’s interpretation, |
| --- | --- |

—

internal discrepancies between separate parts of the Commission decision, examined together, and not independently, arising from the defendant’s interpretation,

| — | subjective and contentious interpretation of words, concepts and phrasing in the text of the Commission decision, which are, essentially, ambiguous from a linguistic point of view and/or from the point of view of their generally accepted meaning, |
| --- | --- |

—

subjective and contentious interpretation of words, concepts and phrasing in the text of the Commission decision, which are, essentially, ambiguous from a linguistic point of view and/or from the point of view of their generally accepted meaning,

| — | preference given to theoretical indicators for individual financial elements, for which practical indicators exist. |
| --- | --- |

—

preference given to theoretical indicators for individual financial elements, for which practical indicators exist.

| 2. | The second plea in law is based on the defendant’s interpretation (and its financial calculation based on that interpretation) of Commission Decision No 50-2004/28.5.2004 concerning the practical application of the decision in so far as it applies a relative weighting (coefficient) to a country, an interpretation and calculation which the applicant considers to be incorrect






  — | the interpretation and application of the relative weighting (coefficient) for a country to a specific element of the financial calculation contrary to its very essence and the logic of that coefficient from the point of view of financial and economic theory and practice. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The second plea in law is based on the defendant’s interpretation (and its financial calculation based on that interpretation) of Commission Decision No 50-2004/28.5.2004 concerning the practical application of the decision in so far as it applies a relative weighting (coefficient) to a country, an interpretation and calculation which the applicant considers to be incorrect

—

the interpretation and application of the relative weighting (coefficient) for a country to a specific element of the financial calculation contrary to its very essence and the logic of that coefficient from the point of view of financial and economic theory and practice.

---