# C_2019131EN.01002901.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/29

---

Appeal brought on 14 February 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 4 December 2018 in Case T-518/16, Carreras Sequeros and Others v Commission

(Case C-119/19 P)

(2019/C 131/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr, G. Gattinara and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Francisco Carreras Sequeros, Mariola de las Heras Ojeda, Olivier Maes, Gabrio Marinozzi, Giacomo Miserocchi, Marc Thieme Groen, European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of 4 December 2018, Carreras Sequeros and Others v Commission, T-518/16; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of 4 December 2018, Carreras Sequeros and Others v Commission, T-518/16;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the second, third and fourth pleas in law put forward at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the second, third and fourth pleas in law put forward at first instance;

| — | reserve the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The Commission relies on two grounds of appeal.

| 1. | By its first ground of appeal, the Commission claims that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
  The first part of that ground alleges an error of law in the interpretation of the content of Article 31(2) of the Charter. The content of the right to an annual period of paid leave, which is enshrined under Article 31(2), is specified in Article 7 of Directive 2003/88. (1) Thus, the General Court erred in law by taking into account other provisions of Directive 2033/88, such as Articles 14 and 23, and considering them to be applicable to the legislature.
  By the second part of that ground, the Commission alleges an error of law in the interpretation of Article 31(2) of the Charter in so far as the General Court considered that the reduction provided for under Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations was not compatible with a purported principle of improving the living and working conditions of those concerned. Such a principle has no legal basis.
  The third part of that ground alleges, in the alternative, an error of law in the interpretation of the other statutory provisions relating to the context of Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations. The General Court erred in excluding other statutory provisions from its assessment solely on the ground that they existed before the amendment to Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations. The legislature has broad discretion in the choice of measures to be amended or maintained. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By its first ground of appeal, the Commission claims that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

The first part of that ground alleges an error of law in the interpretation of the content of Article 31(2) of the Charter. The content of the right to an annual period of paid leave, which is enshrined under Article 31(2), is specified in Article 7 of Directive 2003/88. (1) Thus, the General Court erred in law by taking into account other provisions of Directive 2033/88, such as Articles 14 and 23, and considering them to be applicable to the legislature.

By the second part of that ground, the Commission alleges an error of law in the interpretation of Article 31(2) of the Charter in so far as the General Court considered that the reduction provided for under Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations was not compatible with a purported principle of improving the living and working conditions of those concerned. Such a principle has no legal basis.

The third part of that ground alleges, in the alternative, an error of law in the interpretation of the other statutory provisions relating to the context of Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations. The General Court erred in excluding other statutory provisions from its assessment solely on the ground that they existed before the amendment to Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations. The legislature has broad discretion in the choice of measures to be amended or maintained.

| 2. | By its second ground of appeal, the Commission alleges an error of law in the interpretation of Article 52(1) of the Charter. The General Court disregarded the case-law to the effect that the legislature has broad discretion when amending the Staff Regulations and that a breach of the principle of proportionality may be found only where the legislature has manifestly exceeded the limits of that discretion. |
| --- | --- |

2.

By its second ground of appeal, the Commission alleges an error of law in the interpretation of Article 52(1) of the Charter. The General Court disregarded the case-law to the effect that the legislature has broad discretion when amending the Staff Regulations and that a breach of the principle of proportionality may be found only where the legislature has manifestly exceeded the limits of that discretion.

---

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

---