# C_2005045EN.01002601.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/26

---

Action brought on 6 December 2004 by Cristina Asturias Cuerno against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-473/04)

(2005/C 45/58)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 December 2004 by Cristina Asturias Cuerno, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramon García-Gallardo and Alicia Sayagués Torres, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the decision of the Commission of 26 August 2004 rejecting her complaint of 27 April 2004; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the decision of the Commission of 26 August 2004 rejecting her complaint of 27 April 2004;

| 2. | recognise the applicant's entitlement to the expatriation allowance and other related allowances; |
| --- | --- |

2.

recognise the applicant's entitlement to the expatriation allowance and other related allowances;

| 3. | order the Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant in these proceedings contests the decision of the administration that she is not entitled to receive the expatriation allowance.

In support of her application she relies on the following pleas in law:

| — | Error of law in the assessment of the facts in that the contested decision does not take account of the fact that the applicant's work as an assistant to a Member of the European Parliament must be considered to be work done for an international organisation which, under the Staff Regulations, does not count towards the reference period. |
| --- | --- |

—

Error of law in the assessment of the facts in that the contested decision does not take account of the fact that the applicant's work as an assistant to a Member of the European Parliament must be considered to be work done for an international organisation which, under the Staff Regulations, does not count towards the reference period.

| — | Manifest error of assessment of the facts and, specifically, of the personal situation of the applicant, in that her reference period in Brussels was calculated wrongly, given that it amounted to only four years and 11 months. |
| --- | --- |

—

Manifest error of assessment of the facts and, specifically, of the personal situation of the applicant, in that her reference period in Brussels was calculated wrongly, given that it amounted to only four years and 11 months.

| — | Breach of the principle of non-discrimination. In that connection, it is claimed that the failure to recognise work done as a parliamentary assistant as work done for an international organisation is contrary to the practice of the other Community institutions. The principle of equal treatment has also been infringed by the Commission in that the work done by the applicant for the European Mortgage Federation was not recognised as work done for an international organisation, although the Commission itself had recognised it as such in the past. |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of the principle of non-discrimination. In that connection, it is claimed that the failure to recognise work done as a parliamentary assistant as work done for an international organisation is contrary to the practice of the other Community institutions. The principle of equal treatment has also been infringed by the Commission in that the work done by the applicant for the European Mortgage Federation was not recognised as work done for an international organisation, although the Commission itself had recognised it as such in the past.

---