# C_2019399EN.01010201.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/102 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/102

---

Action brought on 9 October 2019 — FI v Commission

(Case T-694/19)

(2019/C 399/121)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FI (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 8 March 2019, the decision of 1 April 2019, and the decision of 12 August 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 8 March 2019, the decision of 1 April 2019, and the decision of 12 August 2019;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action against the Commission’s decisions of 8 March, 1 April and 12 August 2019 refusing to grant him a survivor’s pension, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that Articles 18 to 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) are unlawful because they are in breach of the principle of equal treatment and discriminate on the grounds of age, the nature of the legal relationship of a couple’s life together, and disability. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that Articles 18 to 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) are unlawful because they are in breach of the principle of equal treatment and discriminate on the grounds of age, the nature of the legal relationship of a couple’s life together, and disability.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in applying Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in that the Commission should have interpreted those provisions as referring to living together as a married couple, whether the couple is married, in a civil partnership, or cohabiting. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in applying Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in that the Commission should have interpreted those provisions as referring to living together as a married couple, whether the couple is married, in a civil partnership, or cohabiting.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an error in interpreting the concept of a spouse for the purpose of the system applicable to the survivor’s pension, on the ground that the evolution of Western society calls for a broad interpretation of that concept. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error in interpreting the concept of a spouse for the purpose of the system applicable to the survivor’s pension, on the ground that the evolution of Western society calls for a broad interpretation of that concept.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment resulting from a failure to take account of the applicant’s individual situation. The applicant argues in that regard, first, that he lived with his wife for more than 19 years and, second, that their marriage lasted 4 years, 7 months and 8 days. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment resulting from a failure to take account of the applicant’s individual situation. The applicant argues in that regard, first, that he lived with his wife for more than 19 years and, second, that their marriage lasted 4 years, 7 months and 8 days.

---