# C_2019312EN.01004201.xml

| 16.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/42

---

Action brought on 17 July 2019 — Lux v Commission

(Case T-513/19)

(2019/C 312/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Catherine Lux (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the PMO.4 of 21 September 2018 to consider the transfer of the applicant’s contract from EFSA to EASA as a new employment contract and not to apply to her the transitional measures laid down in Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the PMO.4 of 21 September 2018 to consider the transfer of the applicant’s contract from EFSA to EASA as a new employment contract and not to apply to her the transitional measures laid down in Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | 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 relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that the Commission misinterpreted the concept of entry into service. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that the Commission misinterpreted the concept of entry into service.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 10 and 12 of the general implementing provisions, on the ground that those provisions were adopted in order to promote inter-agency mobility, thereby confirming the possibility of a European career within the agencies. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 10 and 12 of the general implementing provisions, on the ground that those provisions were adopted in order to promote inter-agency mobility, thereby confirming the possibility of a European career within the agencies.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity. The applicant submits in that respect that her decision to continue her role within EASA in 2017 was based on the confirmation by the EASA Human Resources Department that this continuation would also ensure the continuation of the conditions relating to her pension rights acquired within EFSA. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity. The applicant submits in that respect that her decision to continue her role within EASA in 2017 was based on the confirmation by the EASA Human Resources Department that this continuation would also ensure the continuation of the conditions relating to her pension rights acquired within EFSA.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of continuity of career and employment of temporary staff. The applicant submits that the Commission cannot exclude the application of Articles 10 and 12 of the general implementing provisions in so far as the Commission itself established a principle of continuous joint analysis of the employment of a temporary agent within agencies. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of continuity of career and employment of temporary staff. The applicant submits that the Commission cannot exclude the application of Articles 10 and 12 of the general implementing provisions in so far as the Commission itself established a principle of continuous joint analysis of the employment of a temporary agent within agencies.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment. The applicant submits in this respect that there are no grounds to justify the difference in treatment between an official and another servant in terms of pension rights within the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment. The applicant submits in this respect that there are no grounds to justify the difference in treatment between an official and another servant in terms of pension rights within the European Union.

---