# C_2017144EN.01005601.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/56

---

Action brought on 16 March 2017 — RV v Commission

(Case T-167/17)

(2017/C 144/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: RV (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. De Montigny, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 21 December 2016 of the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Human Resources to place the applicant on leave in the interests of the service and to retire the applicant automatically with effect from 1 April 2017, pursuant to the fifth paragraph of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 21 December 2016 of the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Human Resources to place the applicant on leave in the interests of the service and to retire the applicant automatically with effect from 1 April 2017, pursuant to the fifth paragraph of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 essential procedural requirements and that an unrestricted delegation of the powers of the appointing authority to apply Article 42c of the Staff Regulations is unlawful. It is also alleged that there has been infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and that an unrestricted delegation of the powers of the appointing authority to apply Article 42c of the Staff Regulations is unlawful. It is also alleged that there has been infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that Article 42c of the Staff Regulations is unlawful, in so far as it disregards the recitals of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), in particular the possibility of making it easier for officials to work until the age of 67 or, in exceptional circumstances, until the age of 70. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Article 42c of the Staff Regulations is unlawful, in so far as it disregards the recitals of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), in particular the possibility of making it easier for officials to work until the age of 67 or, in exceptional circumstances, until the age of 70.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, the principle of legitimate expectations and the duty to have regard to the welfare of staff. It is also alleged that there has been a manifest error of assessment in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, the principle of legitimate expectations and the duty to have regard to the welfare of staff. It is also alleged that there has been a manifest error of assessment in the present case.

---