CELEX: 62016TN0916
Language: en
Date: 2016-12-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-916/16: Action brought on 28 December 2016 — Winkler v Commission

13.2.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 46/28
            
         Action brought on 28 December 2016 — Winkler v Commission
   (Case T-916/16)
   (2017/C 046/33)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Bernd Winkler (Grange, Ireland) (represented by: A. Kässens, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the defendant’s decision of 30 September 2016 on his complaint and order the defendant to adopt a decision on the calculation of capital value at the time of the registration of the applicant’s claim on 14 September 2011;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to EUR 19 920,39, payable to the applicant’s pension account.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law: infringement of the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable period, infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of a fair trial, and infringement of the obligations regarding information and consultation
               The applicant submits that, by processing his claim in a slow manner, the defendant infringed all of the principles governing the proper conduct of an administrative procedure. The applicant was also not given the opportunity to set out his views orally before the measure adversely affecting him was adopted.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law: infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and proportionality
               With regard to the second plea in law, the applicant states that similar claims of other colleagues, who were not older than him, were processed much more quickly, with no objective reason being provided to justify that difference in treatment.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law: breach of the protection of legitimate expectations
               The applicant concludes by contesting the deduction of interest from his calculated capital value for the period between the lodging of his claim and the final transfer of the lump sum, about which the applicant had not previously been informed.