CELEX: 62017TN0283
Language: en
Date: 2017-05-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-283/17: Action brought on 15 May 2017 — SH v Commission

17.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 231/35
            
         Action brought on 15 May 2017 — SH v Commission
   (Case T-283/17)
   (2017/C 231/44)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: SH (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   Declare the application admissible and well-founded,
   In consequence:
   
               —
            
            
               Hold that the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of 13 July 2016 of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (‘the PMO’) and insofar as necessary, the decision expressly rejecting the claim of 3 February 2017;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, a plea of illegality raised against the decision of 13 July 2016, since it is based on the application of the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations which infringes the prohibition on discrimination on grounds of nationality and/or birth, the principle of equal treatment, the right to education, the protection of children’s interests, the principle of proportionality and of legitimacy of any derogation from the rights enshrined in the Charter.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law and infringement of the principle of sound administration, in that the decision of 13 July 2016 is based on an unlawful provision of the Staff Regulations.