# C_2017347EN.01003501.xml

| 16.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/35

---

Action brought on 2 August 2017 — PO v EEAS

(Case T-479/17)

(2017/C 347/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: PO (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N Louis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European External Action Service

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the calculation note of 10 November 2016 which was sent to him by the EEAS human resources department as well as, to the extent necessary, the email of 24 October 2016 by which that department indicated to him that he is not eligible for reimbursement of the education costs of his two children above the ceiling set out in Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials since he is being reassigned; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the calculation note of 10 November 2016 which was sent to him by the EEAS human resources department as well as, to the extent necessary, the email of 24 October 2016 by which that department indicated to him that he is not eligible for reimbursement of the education costs of his two children above the ceiling set out in Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials since he is being reassigned;

| — | annul, to the extent necessary, the reply expressly rejecting his complaint of 16 May 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, to the extent necessary, the reply expressly rejecting his complaint of 16 May 2017;

| — | order the defendant to pay all costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all costs of the proceedings.

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 illegality inasmuch as the calculation note of 10 November 2016 (‘the contested individual decision’) as well as the note of 15 April 2016 and the note of 22 September 2016 on which it is based and the Guidelines infringe the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and Annex X thereto. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging illegality inasmuch as the calculation note of 10 November 2016 (‘the contested individual decision’) as well as the note of 15 April 2016 and the note of 22 September 2016 on which it is based and the Guidelines infringe the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and Annex X thereto.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging illegality inasmuch as the notes on which the contested individual decision is based breach the Guidelines. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging illegality inasmuch as the notes on which the contested individual decision is based breach the Guidelines.

| 3. | Third plea in law, based on the illegality of the contested individual decision on the following grounds:






  — | infringement of the precautionary principle and of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, and infringement of the principle of sound administration as well as that of acquired rights; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, based on the illegality of the contested individual decision on the following grounds:

—

infringement of the precautionary principle and of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, and infringement of the principle of sound administration as well as that of acquired rights;

| — | infringement of the right to family and the right to education; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the right to family and the right to education;

| — | infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination;

| — | failure to carry out a balancing of interests and failure to observe the principle that the measure adopted must be proportionate. |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to carry out a balancing of interests and failure to observe the principle that the measure adopted must be proportionate.

---