Case T-102/25: Action brought on 12 February 2025 – Sico v European Public Prosecutor’s Office
Date: 2025-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, Italy, allowances and expenses, equal pay, equal treatment, judge, public prosecutor's department, regions of Italy, work contract








C_202502097EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2097


14.4.2025






Action brought on 12 February 2025 – Sico v European Public Prosecutor’s Office


(Case T-102/25)

(C/2025/2097)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Valeria Sico (Naples, Italy) (represented by: F. Calvo and V. Manno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO)

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


establish and declare the unlawfulness of the ‘Decision of the College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office of 4 December 2024 on the reply to the complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations lodged by Ms. Valeria Sico European Delegated Prosecutor’ No. 068/2024, issued by the College of the EPPO on 4 December 2024 and, accordingly, annul that decision and all preliminary, connected or consequential measures;










—


establish and declare the applicant’s right to receive from the EPPO the sum of EUR 156 321,51, equivalent to the monthly allowance for assignment to another district, as provided for in respect of Italian magistrates under Article 23 of Decreto-Legge 24 novembre 2000, n. 341 (Decree-Law No 341 of 24 November 2000, ‘Decree-law No 341/2000’) for the period from 20 May 2021 to 27 January 2025 and/or any other such sum deemed appropriate, plus inflation and statutory interest;










—


consequently, order the EPPO to pay Valeria Sico the sum of EUR 156 321,51, equivalent to the monthly allowance for assignment to another district, as provided for in respect of Italian magistrates under Article 23 of Decree-law No 341/2000 for the period from 20 May 2021 to 27 January 2025 and/or any other such sum deemed appropriate, plus inflation and statutory interest;










—


in the alternative: hold that Valeria Sico is entitled to receive payment of a sum of money on the grounds that, even if she was contractually assigned to the district of Naples, she carried out additional duties at the EPPO’s offices in Bari and Catanzaro, thus bearing, in the absence of any contractual clause whatsoever, the added workload associated with that office; such sum of money is to be quantified, as the case may be in equity, taking into consideration the number of files (50) and/or the matters dealt with by the applicant relating to the districts of Lecce and Potenza;










—


accordingly, order the EPPO to pay Valeria Sico the above sum;










—


lastly, order the EPPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings and to pay the costs of the defence.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the application, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


The first plea, alleging unlawfulness of Decision No 068/2024 of the College of the EPPO and of the preliminary, connected or consequential measures, infringement of Article 96(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 and breach of the applicant’s employment contract as a Special Adviser, concluded on 10 May 2021.




The applicant alleges infringement of Article 96(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 which, with a view to not penalising the European Delegated Prosecutor with respect to his or her colleagues who are at the same grade on a national level, enshrines and guarantees equal economic treatment between European and national magistrates, in the sense that what the former are entitled to cannot be less than what the latter are guaranteed.
The applicant claims that the difference in treatment became clear when comparing the assignment [to another district] as provided for by the ordinamento giudiziario italiano (the Law governing the organisation of the Italian courts) to the above assignment tout court of the matters relating to the districts of Lecce and Potenza.
The applicant observes, in particular, that that infringement was committed and occurred the moment the applicant, who was assigned to the Naples office and then simultaneously to the districts of Lecce and Potenza to relieve personnel shortages, was not given the right to receive the supplementary allowance paid to national magistrates under Article 23 of Decree-Law No 341/2000.
She suggests, furthermore, that the above-mentioned supplementary allowance corresponds to the additional top-up amount referred to in the Conditions of Employment adopted by the College of the EPPO by Decision 001/2020.
She notes that the reasoning, adopted by the College of the EPPO in support of the measure rejecting her claim, is not clear and is certainly not convincing.






2.


The second plea, claiming a sum of money based on the fact that the applicant carried out additional activities as a result of her assignment to the districts Lecce and Potenza in the period from 20 May 2021 to 27 January 2025 and had not received the corresponding supplementary allowance.




Precisely due to the irrefutable facts referred to, without prejudice to the above pleas and arguments, and in the unlikely event that the applicant should not be entitled to receive payment of the supplementary allowance for national magistrates provided for under Article 23 of Decree-Law 341/2000, as calculated by the Ministry of Justice, Valeria Sico should be paid, without a doubt, for the work carried out at the EPPO’s offices in Bari and Catanzaro, a sum of money to be quantified, as the case may be in equity, taking into consideration the number of files (50) and/or the matters she dealt with in the context of the abovementioned additional workload.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2097/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)