# C_2019406EN.01003902.xml

| 2.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/39

---

Action brought on 11 October 2019 — FJ and Others v EEAS

(Case T-698/19)

(2019/C 406/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FJ and eight other applicants (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision establishing the applicants’ remuneration slip for the month of December 2018 inasmuch as it applies, for the first time, the new correction coefficients applicable to their remuneration, with retroactive effect as of 1 February 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision establishing the applicants’ remuneration slip for the month of December 2018 inasmuch as it applies, for the first time, the new correction coefficients applicable to their remuneration, with retroactive effect as of 1 February 2018;

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

—

order the EEAS to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), breach of the principle of equal treatment and a manifest error of assessment. The applicants submit that the correction coefficients applied to their remuneration, which are indeed not consistent with those established by the United Nations, did not ensure the equivalence of their purchasing power. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), breach of the principle of equal treatment and a manifest error of assessment. The applicants submit that the correction coefficients applied to their remuneration, which are indeed not consistent with those established by the United Nations, did not ensure the equivalence of their purchasing power.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of legal certainty and of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials. The applicants submit in this connection that they could not have been aware of the irregularity of the remuneration paid to them under the correction coefficients in force. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of legal certainty and of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials. The applicants submit in this connection that they could not have been aware of the irregularity of the remuneration paid to them under the correction coefficients in force.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, which requires an interim update of remunerations where the variation in the cost of living, measured on the basis of the weighting and the corresponding exchange rate, is found to have exceeded 5 % since the last update in the case of a given country. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, which requires an interim update of remunerations where the variation in the cost of living, measured on the basis of the weighting and the corresponding exchange rate, is found to have exceeded 5 % since the last update in the case of a given country.

---