# C_2022138EN.01003201.xml

| 28.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/32

---

Action brought on 14 February 2022 — OF v Commission

(Case T-80/22)

(2022/C 138/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | primarily,






  — | annul the decision of 13 April 2021 of PMO.1 refusing an extension of family allowances for the financial support of stepchildren; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

primarily,

—

annul the decision of 13 April 2021 of PMO.1 refusing an extension of family allowances for the financial support of stepchildren;

| — | annul the decision of 10 May 2021 of PMO.1 to implement Article 85 adopted pursuant to the decision of 13 April 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 10 May 2021 of PMO.1 to implement Article 85 adopted pursuant to the decision of 13 April 2021;

| — | annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint dated 12 November 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint dated 12 November 2021;

| — | in the alternative,






  — | order the defendant to pay compensation for psychological and material damage resulting from breach of administrative duty on the part of the administration, assessed at EUR 56 504,61; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the alternative,

—

order the defendant to pay compensation for psychological and material damage resulting from breach of administrative duty on the part of the administration, assessed at EUR 56 504,61;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action for annulment of the decision of 13 April 2021 of PMO.1 refusing to extend family allowances for the financial support of stepchildren, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact, erroneous and contradictory reasoning, a heavier burden of proof, failure to taken into account the specific circumstances of the case and infringement of the concept of maintenance. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact, erroneous and contradictory reasoning, a heavier burden of proof, failure to taken into account the specific circumstances of the case and infringement of the concept of maintenance.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of forseeability, of legal certainty and of consistent application of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and failure to provide adequate reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of forseeability, of legal certainty and of consistent application of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and failure to provide adequate reasons.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, of the principle of affirmative action, unlawful rejection of the legalised certificate, infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the right of every person to be heard before any decision affecting their interests or situation is taken. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, of the principle of affirmative action, unlawful rejection of the legalised certificate, infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the right of every person to be heard before any decision affecting their interests or situation is taken.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the applicant’s situation and the reality of financial support for the stepchildren. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the applicant’s situation and the reality of financial support for the stepchildren.

In support of her application for annulment of the decision of PMO.1 of 10 May 2021 to implement Article 85 adopted pursuant to the decision of 13 April 2021, the applicant relies on two pleas in law

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and of the conditions laid down for the recovery of overpayments. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and of the conditions laid down for the recovery of overpayments.

---