# C_2021044EN.01005701.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/57

---

Action brought on 16 December 2020 — ON v Commission

(Case T-730/20)

(2021/C 44/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the PMO.1 of 12 March 2020 for the recovery of the sums unduly paid in accordance with Article 85 of the Staff Regulations as from 1 February 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the PMO.1 of 12 March 2020 for the recovery of the sums unduly paid in accordance with Article 85 of the Staff Regulations as from 1 February 2015;

| — | if necessary, annul the decision rejecting his complaint of 3 September 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

if necessary, annul the decision rejecting his complaint of 3 September 2020;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 10 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 10 000;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations in that the conditions for the application of that article are not satisfied. In that regard, the applicant claims inter alia that the authority has not shown that he knew or ought to have known that he was not entitled to the expatriation allowance since his sole prior appointment, that is 2009. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations in that the conditions for the application of that article are not satisfied. In that regard, the applicant claims inter alia that the authority has not shown that he knew or ought to have known that he was not entitled to the expatriation allowance since his sole prior appointment, that is 2009.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging failure to observe the ‘reasonable time’ principle. The applicant invokes in that regard the fact that that failure to observe the reasonable time resulted in the loss of the opportunity to demonstrate the existence of a principal habitual residence outside the United Kingdom for the period concerned, it being specified that obligations to keep records do not usually exceed a period of ten years. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to observe the ‘reasonable time’ principle. The applicant invokes in that regard the fact that that failure to observe the reasonable time resulted in the loss of the opportunity to demonstrate the existence of a principal habitual residence outside the United Kingdom for the period concerned, it being specified that obligations to keep records do not usually exceed a period of ten years.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging maladministration by the authority resulting in its liability to pay compensation. According to the applicant, the fault consists in the authority’s error in fixing his pecuniary rights at the time he took up employment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging maladministration by the authority resulting in its liability to pay compensation. According to the applicant, the fault consists in the authority’s error in fixing his pecuniary rights at the time he took up employment.

---