# C_2019072EN.01004601.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/46

---

Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Brown v Commission

(Case T-18/19)

(2019/C 72/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Colin M. Brown (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: I. Van Damme, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 19 March 2018 of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements that the applicant ceased to be entitled to the expatriation allowance and the travel allowance; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 19 March 2018 of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements that the applicant ceased to be entitled to the expatriation allowance and the travel allowance;

| — | order that the applicant’s entitlement to the expatriation allowance and the travel allowance be restored with effect from 1 December 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the applicant’s entitlement to the expatriation allowance and the travel allowance be restored with effect from 1 December 2017;

| — | order that the allowances which were not paid between 1 December 2017 and the date of re-establishment of the applicant’s entitlement be paid to the applicant with interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the allowances which were not paid between 1 December 2017 and the date of re-establishment of the applicant’s entitlement be paid to the applicant with interest;

| — | annul, if it accepts the plea of illegality, the application of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations to the Applicant until such time as the Institutions replace it with non-discriminatory provisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, if it accepts the plea of illegality, the application of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations to the Applicant until such time as the Institutions replace it with non-discriminatory provisions;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an incorrect interpretation of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations because the Commission was wrong to interpret that provision as meaning that a right to an expatriation allowance, acquired based on the place of origin and center of interests of an official in another Member State prior to his recruitment, is to be re-assessed in case the official concerned subsequently acquires the nationality of the Member State where he remains employed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an incorrect interpretation of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations because the Commission was wrong to interpret that provision as meaning that a right to an expatriation allowance, acquired based on the place of origin and center of interests of an official in another Member State prior to his recruitment, is to be re-assessed in case the official concerned subsequently acquires the nationality of the Member State where he remains employed.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of 19 March 2018 discriminates against the applicant by subjecting his entitlement to the expropriation allowance to the conditions laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of 19 March 2018 discriminates against the applicant by subjecting his entitlement to the expropriation allowance to the conditions laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that, should the General Court find that the Commission was correct to determine the applicant’s entitlement to the expatriation allowance on the basis of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the Commission nevertheless failed to interpret that provision in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that, should the General Court find that the Commission was correct to determine the applicant’s entitlement to the expatriation allowance on the basis of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the Commission nevertheless failed to interpret that provision in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that, if all of three other pleas are rejected, Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations is illegal and inapplicable in the sense that, and in so far as, it produces unjustified discrimination as regards persons in the situation of the applicant, for the reasons advanced in support of the second plea. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that, if all of three other pleas are rejected, Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations is illegal and inapplicable in the sense that, and in so far as, it produces unjustified discrimination as regards persons in the situation of the applicant, for the reasons advanced in support of the second plea.

---