Case T-687/25: Action brought on 3 October 2025 – MR v Council
Date: 2025-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, military training, paid leave, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_202506632EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6632


22.12.2025






Action brought on 3 October 2025 – MR v Council


(Case T-687/25)

(C/2025/6632)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: MR (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the court should:






—


annul the Council’s decisions of 20 December 2024 and 13 March 2025 in so far as they do not grant the applicant leave for national service for the entire period of military training in December 2024;










—


annul the Council’s decision of 16 July 2025 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 20 March 2025;










—


order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.





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 infringement of Article 18(1) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (1) (‘the CEOS’).






—


The applicant argues that the decisions infringed Article 18(1) of the CEOS, under which a member of the temporary staff who is recalled for military service or is required to undergo military training is to be placed on leave for national service. The authority had no discretion, nor was the appointing authority authorised to amend the requirements or legal effects of Article 18 of the CEOS.










—


In particular, the applicant claims that the Council is not entitled to exclude reserve officers from the scope of the provision as a matter of principle or to impose a time limit on leave for national service.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18 of the CEOS by the 2009 service instruction.






—


The contested decisions of the Council were based on an internal Council service instruction of 2009, against which the applicant raised a plea of illegality.










—


The applicant is of the view that the 2009 service instruction infringes Article 18(1) of the CEOS, inter alia, for the reasons stated in the first plea in law. In particular, that instruction amends certain factual requirements (obligation to perform military service/military training and the group of addressees) and legal effects (duration of leave) of provisions in the Statue and the CEOS, thereby failing to recognise that only the legislator is authorised to do so.










—


The applicant argues that the 2009 service instruction is based on a grossly incorrect interpretation of Article 12(2)(b) of the CEOS.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging contravention of a decision of the Board of Administrative Managers.
– The applicant claims that the 2009 service instruction and the contested decisions contravened a 1982 decision of the Board of Administrative Managers under which annual leave is not reduced in the event of military training.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.
– The applicant claims that the Council has breached the principle of legitimate expectations, as the applicant had received precise, unconditional and consistent assurances from competent and reliable sources, prior to the contested decisions being issued, which gave him reasonable grounds to expect that he would be placed on leave for military training. It was only after completing his military training that the applicant was informed of an alleged error in relation to his placement on leave.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment.
– The applicant argues that the 2009 service instruction and the contested decisions breach the principle of equal treatment because, as regards the question of whether a call-up order issued under national law already constitutes a sufficient obligation for staff members to complete a period of military training and whether the staff member concerned is a reserve officer, they establish an arbitrary and manifestly inappropriate distinction between a member of staff of the Council (on the one hand) and a member of staff of the Commission, the Court of Auditors or the European External Action Service (on the other hand) who is required to complete a period of military training.






(1)  Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I Volume 1959-1962, p. 135), as amended.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6632/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)