Case T-505/19: Action brought on 12 July 2019 — DE v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Convention on Human Rights, European official, early childhood, equal treatment, maternity leave, parental responsibility, staff regulations (EU), surrogate mother








C_2019305EN.01006301.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/63






Action brought on 12 July 2019 — DE v Parliament
(Case T-505/19)
(2019/C 305/73)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: DE (represented by: T. Oeyen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Parliament’s decision of 30 October 2018 refusing to grant the applicant adequate special leave to take care of his twin children newly born via surrogacy.










—


order the Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of equal treatment and non-discrimination.






—


By failing to grant the applicant birth leave rights which are equivalent to maternity leave and/or adoption leave, the contested decision violates the applicant’s fundamental rights of equal protection and non-discrimination, as enshrined in Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and Article 1(d) of the EU Staff Regulations. As homosexuals are the predominant group of parents making use of surrogacy, they are disproportionately negatively affected by the Parliament’s interpretation of the birth leave-related provisions of the EU Staff Regulations as reflected in the contested decision.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the right to protection of the applicant’s family life.






—


By failing to grant the applicant adequate special leave to take care of his newly born children, equivalent to maternity and/or adoption leave, the contested decision violates Article 8 ECHR, which protects the applicant’s right to family life, read in conjunction with Article 14 ECHR.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was taken in breach of the principle of good administration.






—


In particular, it is alleged that the defendant (i) failed to grant the applicant the right to be heard; and (ii) failed to give adequate reasons for its decision.














4.


Fourth plea in law, a plea of illegality relating to the special leave provisions of the EU Staff Regulations as interpreted by the defendant in the contested decision.






—


For the same reasons as set forth in the first to third pleas above, it is argued that the defendant’s interpretation of Article 57 of the Staff Regulations, read in conjunction with Article 6 of Annex V to those Regulations, as reflected in the contested decision, to the effect that officials or other servants of the European Parliament who become parents of a child via surrogacy are not entitled to special leave equivalent to maternity and/or adoption leave, is illegal.














5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging an error in law and misapplication of Article 6 of Annex 2 to the EU Staff Regulations and of the European Parliament’s Internal Rules governing leave.






—


In the event that the Court holds that the applicant is not entitled to birth leave equivalent to that which is granted as maternity leave or adoption leave, the applicant submits that, as the father of twins, he is entitled to 20 days’ leave. This entitlement applies regardless of the legal mechanism through which the applicant gained parental responsibility.