# C_2019295EN.01008102.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/81

---

Action brought on 8 July 2019 — CU v Committee of the Regions

(Case T-487/19)

(2019/C 295/107)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CU (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the 18 October 2018 reducing the multiplication factor applicable to the calculation of the applicant’s remuneration following his promotion to grade AD 14 during the 2018 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the 18 October 2018 reducing the multiplication factor applicable to the calculation of the applicant’s remuneration following his promotion to grade AD 14 during the 2018 promotion exercise;

| — | order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), read in conjunction with Article 7(7) of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the contested decision infringes the applicant’s acquired right to an increase in the multiplication factor applicable to the calculation of his remuneration corresponding to the value of the automatic step advancement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), read in conjunction with Article 7(7) of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the contested decision infringes the applicant’s acquired right to an increase in the multiplication factor applicable to the calculation of his remuneration corresponding to the value of the automatic step advancement.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement, by the contested decision, of the fundamental right to equal treatment and the principle of proportionality in so far as two officials of equivalent merit and seniority who are promoted on the same day are treated differently. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement, by the contested decision, of the fundamental right to equal treatment and the principle of proportionality in so far as two officials of equivalent merit and seniority who are promoted on the same day are treated differently.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s legitimate expectation that the value of his automatically acquired step advancement will be maintained following his subsequent promotion, on the ground that the multiplication factor was reduced ten months after the initial act. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s legitimate expectation that the value of his automatically acquired step advancement will be maintained following his subsequent promotion, on the ground that the multiplication factor was reduced ten months after the initial act.

---