Case T-71/21: Action brought on 2 February 2021 — QB v Commission
Date: 2021-02-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, European official, Poland, allowances and expenses, expatriate worker, judge, posted worker, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021148EN.01001901.xml










26.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/19






Action brought on 2 February 2021 — QB v Commission
(Case T-71/21)
(2021/C 148/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: QB (represented by: R. Wardyn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the PMO of 6 April 2020 and the decision of the appointing authority of 3 November 2020, by which the European Commission refused to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging insufficient reasoning of the decisions of the PMO and the Appointing Authority.






—


The applicant argues that the PMO and the Appointing Authority did not refer to the fact that the constitutional and legal provisions applicable to all Polish judges, in conformity with the principle of rule of law, did not allow the applicant to enter into any legal relationship with the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) or any other private law body in Poland or abroad;










—


He further argues that the PMO and the Appointing Authority ignored the fact that, according to the Polish law, the applicant, who was a judge in active judicial service, could not have been under the supervision of any other authority than the District Court of Lubartow and the KSSiP (National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution) hierarchy.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.






—


It is argued that the phrase ‘work done for another State’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations should be interpreted as covering all circumstances arising from work done for another State and should not be limited to work done for the official representation of that State, and that neither the law nor the case-law support the Appointing Authority’s restrictive appreciation;










—


It is further argued that the KSSiP should be considered a central State body and, consequently, work done by the applicant during his delegation to the KSSiP should be considered as work done for the State of Poland;










—


The applicant argues, furthermore, that the work done by him (1) was subsidiary to the legal relationship between the applicant and the KSSiP;










—


The applicant argues, in addition, that his main occupation during the reference period was his work for the KSSiP in Poland.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.






—


It is argued that the applicant preserved a specific tie linking him to Poland, thereby hindering the creation of a lasting tie to Belgium;










—


Furthermore, the applicant maintains that his legal and factual situation did not allow him to integrate in Belgian society.










(1)  Editorial note: phrase omitted to ensure anonymity.