# C_2020247EN.01001701.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/17

---

Action brought on 17 April 2020 — FJ and Others v EEAS

(Case T-225/20)

(2020/C 247/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FJ and 7 other applicants (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision establishing the applicants’ remuneration slip for the month of June 2019 inasmuch as it applies, for the first time, the new correction coefficients applicable to their remuneration, with retroactive effect as of 1 August 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision establishing the applicants’ remuneration slip for the month of June 2019 inasmuch as it applies, for the first time, the new correction coefficients applicable to their remuneration, with retroactive effect as of 1 August 2018;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), breach of the principle of equal treatment and a manifest error of assessment. The applicants submit, in that regard, that the defendant has failed to provide them with information enabling them to understand not only the reduction of the correction coefficient applied to their remuneration, but also the retroactive application which generates a particularly large debt. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), breach of the principle of equal treatment and a manifest error of assessment. The applicants submit, in that regard, that the defendant has failed to provide them with information enabling them to understand not only the reduction of the correction coefficient applied to their remuneration, but also the retroactive application which generates a particularly large debt.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of legal certainty and of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials. The applicants submit that they that they could not have been aware of the exceptional reduction of the correction coefficient applied to their remuneration for the reference period with retroactive effect. In their opinion, as the conditions laid down by Article 85 of the Staff Regulations have not been met, the Commission cannot request repayment from them of several months’ remuneration on the basis of the adjustment of the correction coefficient with retroactive effect. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of legal certainty and of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials. The applicants submit that they that they could not have been aware of the exceptional reduction of the correction coefficient applied to their remuneration for the reference period with retroactive effect. In their opinion, as the conditions laid down by Article 85 of the Staff Regulations have not been met, the Commission cannot request repayment from them of several months’ remuneration on the basis of the adjustment of the correction coefficient with retroactive effect.

---