Case T-366/24: Action brought on 17 July 2024 – EN v Court of Justice of the European Union
Date: 2024-07-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, abuse of power, artificial reproduction, children's rights, equal treatment, freedom of self-determination, health expenditure, pay, staff regulations (EU)








C_202405641EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5641


30.9.2024






Action brought on 17 July 2024 – EN v Court of Justice of the European Union


(Case T-366/24)

(C/2024/5641)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: EN (represented by: A. Le Gouvello De La Porte, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the applicant’s salary statement for December 2023 and all his subsequent salary statements in so far as they concern his JSIS contributions;










—


in so far as necessary, annul Decision R-2/24 of the complaints committee of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 19 April 2024 dismissing the applicant’s prior administrative complaint;










—


order the Court of Justice of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations. (1)







—


The applicant asserts that, by establishing a right for JSIS affiliates to the reimbursement of treatment outside the context of any pathology, in this instance elective medically assisted reproduction (‘MAR’) and elective gamete preservation, and requiring that party to finance the cover for those services and to bear its financial impact, the provision at issue infringes Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations.
In the alternative:














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment.






—


The applicant asserts that, by providing for a right to the reimbursement of MAR to the same extent in the case of fertile women as in the case of fertile women, the provision at issue infringes the principle of equal treatment.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and a manifest error of assessment.






—


The applicant asserts that, as regards its financial consequences for the JSIS, the provision at issue is vitiated by an insufficient statement of reasons in relation to elective MAR, a failure to state reasons in relation to elective gamete preservation and, last, a manifest error of assessment.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). (2)







—


The applicant asserts that, by establishing reimbursement for JSIS affiliates of the use of techniques involving the screening of embryos, the provision at issue is financing the development of eugenic practices, which are prohibited by Article 3(2)(b) of the Charter.














5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights of the child, guaranteed in Article 24 of the Charter and in Article 7(1) of the United Nations Convention of 20 November 1989 on the Rights of the Child.






—


The applicant asserts that, by establishing reimbursement for JSIS affiliates of the use of techniques which result in the child being deprived of a personal relationship with a biological father, or even with any father at all, the provision at issue infringes the fundamental rights of the child.














6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter.






—


The applicant asserts that, by establishing reimbursement for JSIS affiliates of the use of techniques which involve the destruction of human embryos, the provision at issue disregards the benefit of the doubt, is contrary to the principle of the presumption of innocence, disregards the precautionary principle and, lastly, infringes Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter on the inviolability of human dignity and the right to life.














7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Commission.






—


The applicant asserts that the Commission exceeded its powers, having regard to the consequences of the provision at issue and of the manner in which it was adopted.










(1)  Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, established by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 30).

(2)  
            OJ 2016 C 202, p. 389.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5641/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)