# C_2023134EN.01002401.xml

| 17.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/24

---

Action brought on 8 March 2023 — VA v Commission

(Case T-123/23)

(2023/C 134/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VA (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the PMO of 11 May 2022 which removes the applicant’s entitlement to receive dependent child and education allowances as of 1 July 2021, and thereby removes the tax abatement associated with the dependent child allowance; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the PMO of 11 May 2022 which removes the applicant’s entitlement to receive dependent child and education allowances as of 1 July 2021, and thereby removes the tax abatement associated with the dependent child allowance;

| — | annul the decision of PMO.1 of 13 June 2022 informing the applicant of the recovery, pursuant to Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, of an amount of EUR 3 500; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of PMO.1 of 13 June 2022 informing the applicant of the recovery, pursuant to Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, of an amount of EUR 3 500;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation in the amount of EUR 2 441,84; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation in the amount of EUR 2 441,84;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action against the decision of 11 May 2022, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the concepts of dependent child and attendance at an educational establishment, which entitle the applicant to receive education and dependent child allowances until the end of the school year. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the concepts of dependent child and attendance at an educational establishment, which entitle the applicant to receive education and dependent child allowances until the end of the school year.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging inequality of treatment, by the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO), between children who completed their university education in the first session and those who completed their university education in the second session. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging inequality of treatment, by the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO), between children who completed their university education in the first session and those who completed their university education in the second session.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the principle of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the principle of sound administration.

In support of his action against the decision of 13 June 2022, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First, and principal, plea in law, alleging that the applicant was entitled to receive education and dependent child allowances in respect of his daughter for the period of 1 July to 30 September 2021. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First, and principal, plea in law, alleging that the applicant was entitled to receive education and dependent child allowances in respect of his daughter for the period of 1 July to 30 September 2021.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the payment of EUR 3 500 had a cause and was not irregular. Even if the payment had been irregular, the applicant takes the view that it is appropriate to find that he had no knowledge of the irregular nature of the payment and, in any case, the irregularity was in no way obvious, with the result that he could legitimately have believed that the payment was regular. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the payment of EUR 3 500 had a cause and was not irregular. Even if the payment had been irregular, the applicant takes the view that it is appropriate to find that he had no knowledge of the irregular nature of the payment and, in any case, the irregularity was in no way obvious, with the result that he could legitimately have believed that the payment was regular.

---