Order — ECLI:EU:T:2024:7
Date: 2024-01-11
Language of the case: French
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 for damages

Order of the General Court of 11 January 2024 – TO v EEA (Case T-417/23) 1 (Civil service – Members of the contract staff – Remuneration – Installation allowance – Compliance with a judgment of the General Court – Decision which was not contested in time – Conditional undertaking given in the context of an amicable settlement – Request for payment of installation allowance based on Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations – Inadmissibility – Application for injunction – Manifest lack of jurisdiction) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: TO (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer) Defendant: European Environment Agency (represented by: O. Cornu, acting as Agent, supported by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer) Re: By her application based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant requests in essence, in the first place, that the European Environment Agency (EEA) is ordered to pay, first, an amount of EUR 2 950, corresponding to the advance on the installation allowance deducted from the sums paid to her in compliance with the judgment of 11 June 2019, TO v EEA (T-462/17, not published, EU:T:2019:397), together with an annual interest rate of 5% from 1 August 2019 and, secondly, an amount of EUR 22 000 as compensation for the material and non-material harm that she has suffered. In the second place, the applicant requests to be provided with an explanation to understand the additional deduction of EUR 500 that appeared on her pay slip for the month of August 2019 and, where appropriate, that she is reimbursed this amount if that recovery is unfounded. Operative part of the order 1. The action is dismissed in part due to the manifest lack of jurisdiction of the General Court to hear and determine it, in part for being inadmissible, and in part for manifestly lacking any foundation in law. 2. TO is ordered to pay the costs. ____________ 1 OJ C/2023/50, 9.10.2023.