# C_2017221EN.01003502.xml

| 10.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/35

---

Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Quadri di Cardano v Commission

(Case T-273/17)

(2017/C 221/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Quadri di Cardano (Schaerbeek, Belgium) (represented by: N. De Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the PMO’s decision of 19 July 2016 setting his individual rights at the time of taking up employment at the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA), in that it refuses to award him an expatriation allowance of 16 % pursuant to Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and, consequently, implies that related rights, in particular annual travel expenses, are not to be granted; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the PMO’s decision of 19 July 2016 setting his individual rights at the time of taking up employment at the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA), in that it refuses to award him an expatriation allowance of 16 % pursuant to Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and, consequently, implies that related rights, in particular annual travel expenses, are not to be granted;

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

—

order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure to have regard for the discussions and negotiations relating to the period preceding the reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials and, in particular, failure to respect legitimate expectations, infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty of the applicant, as well as disregard for his acquired rights, by reason of a suddenly different analysis of the documentation used to determine his individual rights. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to have regard for the discussions and negotiations relating to the period preceding the reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials and, in particular, failure to respect legitimate expectations, infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty of the applicant, as well as disregard for his acquired rights, by reason of a suddenly different analysis of the documentation used to determine his individual rights.

| 2. | Second plea in law, relating to the temporary employment contract governed by Belgian law invoked by the Commission as justification for the view that the applicant established his residence in Belgium during a period of employment for a private employer. This plea in law is divided into three parts:






  — | first part, alleging that the Commission misused and abused its powers by attempting to exclude any hierarchical relationship between itself and the applicant during his period of employment as an agency staff member in order to be able to deny the existence of employment with an international organisation, which would in principle have to result in the postponement of any determination as to whether the conditions required by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations had been satisfied; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, relating to the temporary employment contract governed by Belgian law invoked by the Commission as justification for the view that the applicant established his residence in Belgium during a period of employment for a private employer. This plea in law is divided into three parts:

—

first part, alleging that the Commission misused and abused its powers by attempting to exclude any hierarchical relationship between itself and the applicant during his period of employment as an agency staff member in order to be able to deny the existence of employment with an international organisation, which would in principle have to result in the postponement of any determination as to whether the conditions required by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations had been satisfied;

| — | second part, alleging an error in law, infringement of the Belgian statutory provisions relating to temporary employment contracts and misuse of powers by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

second part, alleging an error in law, infringement of the Belgian statutory provisions relating to temporary employment contracts and misuse of powers by the Commission;

| — | third part, alleging a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the principle of proportionality and infringement of the principle of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

third part, alleging a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the principle of proportionality and infringement of the principle of sound administration.

---