Case T-56/17: Action brought on 27 January 2017 — PO and Others v EEAS
Date: 2017-01-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, education grant, equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to education, right to justice, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2017112EN.01003902.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/39





Action brought on 27 January 2017 — PO and Others v EEAS
(Case T-56/17)
(2017/C 112/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: PO, PP, PQ (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The parties claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision published on 15 April 2016 amending the Rights and obligations of officials, temporary and contract agents: Education Allowances;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 15 April 2016 (‘the contested decision’) is unlawful in that it was adopted in infringement of Article 1 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations and of Article 110 of the Staff Regulations in the absence of EEAS general implementing provisions.
The applicants also claim the total absence of any statement of reasons for the dismissal of their complaint against the contested decision.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging failure to implement a social dialogue before the adoption of the contested decision, in infringement of Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the acquired rights of officials and agents who have been employed for several years and whose children have also been in school for several years. That infringement is the result of the contested decision in so far as it alters the previously-established system whereby the vast majority of officials and agents who applied for a supplementary reimbursement obtained full reimbursement of the cost exceeding the statutory ceiling.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the precautionary principle, and the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty and infringement of the principle of sound administration, which result from the contested decision, in particular as it provides only for a transitional measure for one year and the new terms of reimbursement thus adopted will have been imposed on employed officials and agents the time of their adoption.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that there is no balancing of interests and observance of the proportionality principle which vitiated the contested decision, the sole objective of which is the reduction of the financial impact involved in an additional reimbursement of education costs whereas the EEAS could have prioritised other measures in order to attain such an objective, without infringing the rights of its staff. The defendant thus chose the solution which was the most prejudical to its officials and agents.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, in so far as the contested decision introduces discrimination by establishing a principle of reimbursement on an identical basis for officials and other agents located in different delegations and, therefore, identical treatment of different situations.










7.


Seventh ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the right to family and the right to education allegedly committed by the EEAS since the effect of the adoption of the contested decision is to force the applicants to choose between their professional life and those fundamental rights.