# C_2019312EN.01001101.xml

| 16.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/11

---

Action brought on 29 July 2019 — MU v Parliament

(Case T-40/16)

(2019/C 312/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: MU (represented by: A. Bruno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | find and declare that the measure adopted by the European Parliament on 11 December 2015 refusing the additional payment for trainees with disabilities, provided for by Article 24(9) of the Internal Rules governing Traineeships and Study Visits in the Secretariat of the European Parliament, is unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

find and declare that the measure adopted by the European Parliament on 11 December 2015 refusing the additional payment for trainees with disabilities, provided for by Article 24(9) of the Internal Rules governing Traineeships and Study Visits in the Secretariat of the European Parliament, is unlawful;

| — | accordingly, declare that MU has a personal right to be awarded the additional payment provided for in Article 29(9) of the rules governing traineeships at the European Parliament, since he has a disability of 70 %; |
| --- | --- |

—

accordingly, declare that MU has a personal right to be awarded the additional payment provided for in Article 29(9) of the rules governing traineeships at the European Parliament, since he has a disability of 70 %;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant the additional remuneration provided for in the applicable rules, together with interest and monetary indexation from the date of the administrative request to the date of actual payment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant the additional remuneration provided for in the applicable rules, together with interest and monetary indexation from the date of the administrative request to the date of actual payment;

| — | 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 claims:

| 1. | The award of the additional payment to persons with disabilities, provided for in Article 24(9) of the Internal Rules governing Traineeships and Study Visits in the Secretariat of the European Parliament, is not a matter of discretion for the Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The award of the additional payment to persons with disabilities, provided for in Article 24(9) of the Internal Rules governing Traineeships and Study Visits in the Secretariat of the European Parliament, is not a matter of discretion for the Parliament.

| 2. | The percentage disability is confirmed or established by the European Parliament’s medical adviser according to whether it is based on a national certificate or on a detailed opinion of the trainee’s doctor, making reference to the ‘European Guide for Assessment, for medical purposes, of Physical and Mental Impairments’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The percentage disability is confirmed or established by the European Parliament’s medical adviser according to whether it is based on a national certificate or on a detailed opinion of the trainee’s doctor, making reference to the ‘European Guide for Assessment, for medical purposes, of Physical and Mental Impairments’.

| 3. | The European Parliament’s discretion, if it has any in the present case, has been exceeded without just cause. In this respect, it should be noted that the rules in question distinguish between, on the one hand, cases in which the disability is based on a certificate from the national authority, as here, in which case the disability is confirmed by the European Parliament’s doctor, and, on the other hand, cases in which the disability is based on a report from the trainee’s doctor. In the latter case, and only in that case, the percentage disability is established by the European Parliament’s doctor. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Parliament’s discretion, if it has any in the present case, has been exceeded without just cause. In this respect, it should be noted that the rules in question distinguish between, on the one hand, cases in which the disability is based on a certificate from the national authority, as here, in which case the disability is confirmed by the European Parliament’s doctor, and, on the other hand, cases in which the disability is based on a report from the trainee’s doctor. In the latter case, and only in that case, the percentage disability is established by the European Parliament’s doctor.

---