28.2.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 95/43
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action against the decisions of the Commission of 6 and 9 April 2021 and of 4 May 2021 to recover the sums unduly paid to him in respect of the tax allowance for his children, the applicant relies on three pleas in law. 1.
First plea in law, alleging erroneous interpretation and application of Article 85 of the Regulations of Officials of the European Union.
The applicant submits in that regard that the conditions laid down in Article 85 to permit the recovery of sums paid but not due are not met. 2.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations in that, in the present case, the three conditions to characterise legitimate expectations under the applicable legislation are met. 3.
Third plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons.
Action brought on 12 January 2022 — NY v Commission (Case T-21/22) (2022/C 95/60) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: NY (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, lawyers) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — declare the present action admissible and founded; — annul the first contested decision and, if necessary, the second contested decision; — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action against the decision of the Commission of 14 April 2021 dismissing the applicant’s claim for compensation filed on 22 December 2020, the applicant relies on three pleas in law. 1.
First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration and the principle of impartiality.
The applicant submits that, in the context of the preparatory inquiry of the claim for compensation, the requirement of impartiality has not been met, both subjectively and objectively. 2.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to integrity and dignity and the existence of several manifest errors of assessment.
The applicant claims that the defendant failed to comply with its duty to preserve and protect its dignity and its integrity, having regard to the acts of violence by security personnel against him and the finding of which is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment. 3.
Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care in that the applicant did not receive all the support which he was entitled to expect from the defendant.
Action brought on 11 January 2022 — Grail v Commission (Case T-23/22) (2022/C 95/61) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: Grail LLC (Menlo Park, California, United States) (represented by: D. Little, Solicitor, J. Ruiz Calzado, J. M. Jiménez-Laiglesia Oñate and A. Giraud, lawyers)