# C_2018341EN.01001602.xml

| 24.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/16

---

Action brought on 22 June 2018 — WI v Commission

(Case T-379/18)

(2018/C 341/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: WI (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions;

| — | order the payment of a surviving spouse’s pension to [WI]; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of a surviving spouse’s pension to [WI];

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action challenging the decision of the European Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) dated 16 August 2017 refusing to grant the applicant a survivor’s pension, and the confirmatory decision, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the term ‘surviving spouse’ and infringement of Article 1d(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and Article 17 of Annex VIII thereto, in so far as the Commission based its reasoning on a restrictive and erroneous interpretation of the term ‘surviving spouse’ provided for by the Staff Regulations for the purposes of rejecting the applicant’s request for recognition of his status as a surviving spouse. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the term ‘surviving spouse’ and infringement of Article 1d(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and Article 17 of Annex VIII thereto, in so far as the Commission based its reasoning on a restrictive and erroneous interpretation of the term ‘surviving spouse’ provided for by the Staff Regulations for the purposes of rejecting the applicant’s request for recognition of his status as a surviving spouse.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials in so far as, according to the applicant, the Commission should have taken into account the exceptional circumstances of the case in order to interpret Article 17 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations as meaning that the applicant may be entitled as of right to a pension by way of his status as a surviving spouse. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials in so far as, according to the applicant, the Commission should have taken into account the exceptional circumstances of the case in order to interpret Article 17 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations as meaning that the applicant may be entitled as of right to a pension by way of his status as a surviving spouse.

---