Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2023:282
Date: 2023-05-24
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

Action brought on 4 November 2021 – AL v Commission (Case T-714/21) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: AL (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: primarily, annul the defendant’s decision of 4 August 2021 (ref. Ares (2021) 4962656) in response to the complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) lodged by the applicant on 9 April 2021 against the decision of the PMO of 11 January 2021; 1 order the defendant to disclose and produce (i) documentary evidence in relation to the calculation which was at the basis of the PMO decision of 21 November 2019; and (ii) the entire text of the “DG HR reply to another complaint”, partially quoted by the PMO in the email dated 8 October 2020; order the defendant to determine the assumed cost of maintenance for the period from 1 November 2020 to 30 September 2021 based on the applicant’s mother’s residence in Belgium; and order the defendant to pay the allowance for his mother assimilated as a child for the period from 1 November 2020 to 30 September 2021; order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging the violation by the defendant of Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and of the Commission Decision of 15 April 2014 on general implementing provisions concerning persons to be treated as dependent children, in so far as, in calculating the cost of the applicant’s mother’s maintenance, the defendant incorrectly estimated that the applicant’s mother’s place of residence was in Romania and not in Belgium. Furthermore, the Commission erred in determining the cost of the applicant’s mother’s maintenance as 50% of the basic salary of an official in the first step of grade AST 1, corrected with the country coefficient for Romania, since the applicant’s mother resided permanently in the applicant’s household and, that being so, 40% of that basic salary (with no correction) should have been considered. Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the applicant was neither aware that there was no due reason for the payment of the assimilation allowance for the period from 1 November 2019 to 31 October 2020, nor was the overpayment patently such that he could not have been unaware of it. ____________ 1 Editorial note: the contested decision concerns the payment of family allowances pursuant to Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations applicable to officials of the European Union.