# C_2021079EN.01003401.xml

| 8.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/34

---

Action brought on 14 January 2021 — PJ v EIT

(Case T-12/21)

(2021/C 79/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 17 December 2020 by which the executive director denies the applicant the benefit of the exceptions to the prohibition on teleworking outside the country of employment and dismisses her request to telework from her place of origin submitted on 15 December 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 17 December 2020 by which the executive director denies the applicant the benefit of the exceptions to the prohibition on teleworking outside the country of employment and dismisses her request to telework from her place of origin submitted on 15 December 2020;

| — | 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 two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement, first, of Article 5.1.b. of the Guidelines applicable to the Commission and transposed to EIT and, second, of the applicant’s acquired rights. Next, the applicant invokes breach of the authority’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. The applicant also alleges arbitrary interpretation of the ‘travel restrictions’ concept, lack of predictability and legal certainty, infringement of the national interpretations of those same sanitary measures introduced in each Member State. Finally, the applicant invokes infringement of the right to private and family life, failure to take into account her situation beyond the actual and justified interest of the service and disproportionate harm to her interests. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement, first, of Article 5.1.b. of the Guidelines applicable to the Commission and transposed to EIT and, second, of the applicant’s acquired rights. Next, the applicant invokes breach of the authority’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. The applicant also alleges arbitrary interpretation of the ‘travel restrictions’ concept, lack of predictability and legal certainty, infringement of the national interpretations of those same sanitary measures introduced in each Member State. Finally, the applicant invokes infringement of the right to private and family life, failure to take into account her situation beyond the actual and justified interest of the service and disproportionate harm to her interests.

| 2. | Second plea in law relating to a plea of illegality regarding the rules in force if they are to be considered as prohibiting the applicant from teleworking from her place of origin in her situation based on infringement of the principles of equal treatment, right to private and family life, wellbeing at work, the principle of legal certainty and predictability. The applicant also invokes force majeure and infringement of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that the restriction on her rights is unlawful and disproportionate. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law relating to a plea of illegality regarding the rules in force if they are to be considered as prohibiting the applicant from teleworking from her place of origin in her situation based on infringement of the principles of equal treatment, right to private and family life, wellbeing at work, the principle of legal certainty and predictability. The applicant also invokes force majeure and infringement of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that the restriction on her rights is unlawful and disproportionate.

---