Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2023:654
Date: 2023-10-18
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

Action brought on 29 September 2022 – RN v EUIPO (Case T-606/22) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: RN (represented by: S. Moya Felix, lawyer) Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the Decision of the Appointing Authority (Executive Director at EUIPO) dated 4 July 2022 concerning the reply to a complaint filed under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulation as regards the lack of payment to the applicant of the education allowance, during certain periods, as well as the lack of recognition of the entitlement of the applicant to receive half of full family allowances (comprising 1/3 of household allowance, dependent child allowance and education allowance corresponding to the applicant’s son) as of a specified date; recognize, as a consequence, the entitlement of the applicant to those family allowances (education allowance during certain periods, as well as half of family allowances, comprising 1/3 of household allowance, dependent child allowance and education allowance corresponding to the applicant’s son) as of a specified date; order the Appointing Authority (EUIPO) to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 67 in relation to Article 63 of EU Staff Regulation. 1 The decision issued by a national court on 28 November 2021 regarding the right of custody was not respected by EUIPO in the sense that the latter considers that 50% of the family allowances should not be paid to the applicant but only to the other parent, an official of the EUIPO, under very discretional reasons, such as that the decision of the national court does not specify that the applicant’s son is living with both parents during exactly 50% of time. EUIPO distorted the facts, since usually Family Court decisions are not specifying periods of time, hours or days. Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of articles 1, 2, 3 of Annex VII of EU Staff Regulation concerning family allowances. The applicant is therefore contesting the decision of the EUIPO’s Appointing Authority not only as regards the rejection of the half of the family allowances as of a specified date and on, but also as regards the rejection of the education allowances for certain specified periods. ____________ 1 Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 1962 P 045, p. 1385).