# C_2021110EN.01003301.xml

| 29.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/33

---

Action brought on 25 January 2021 — PP and Others v Parliament

(Case T-39/21)

(2021/C 110/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: PP, PQ, PR, PS and PT (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

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

—

annul the contested decisions;

| — | annul, in so far as necessary, the decisions rejecting the complaints made by applicants under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as necessary, the decisions rejecting the complaints made by applicants under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’);

| — | order the Parliament to pay compensation for non-material damage assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 1 000 per person; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay compensation for non-material damage assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 1 000 per person;

| — | order the Parliament to pay compensation for material damage corresponding to 25 % of their salary and pay compensatory interest and default interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay compensation for material damage corresponding to 25 % of their salary and pay compensatory interest and default interest;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the Parliament of 31 March 2020 relating to temporary part-time work away from the place of employment for family reasons relating to COVID-19 (‘the decision on 75 % part-time work relating to COVID’) and each individual decision in that respect affecting the applicants, the latter rely on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, relating to a plea of illegality in that the contested decisions were taken pursuant to unlawful internal rules. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, relating to a plea of illegality in that the contested decisions were taken pursuant to unlawful internal rules.

| 2. | Second plea in law, divided into two parts:






  — | first part, alleging infringement of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, and alleging a manifest error of assessment in that the defendant manifestly misconstrued the concept of expatriation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, divided into two parts:

—

first part, alleging infringement of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, and alleging a manifest error of assessment in that the defendant manifestly misconstrued the concept of expatriation;

| — | second part, alleging infringement of Articles 62 and 69 of the Staff Regulations and infringement of the principles of legality and legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

—

second part, alleging infringement of Articles 62 and 69 of the Staff Regulations and infringement of the principles of legality and legal certainty.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, and failure to have due regard to the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, and failure to have due regard to the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations regarding recovery of overpayments. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations regarding recovery of overpayments.

Finally, the applicants seek compensation for the non-material and material damage which they claim to have suffered as a result of the contested decisions.

---