CELEX: 62016TN0734
Language: en
Date: 2016-10-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-734/16: Action brought on 19 October 2016 — Argyraki v Commission

12.12.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 462/36
            
         Action brought on 19 October 2016 — Argyraki v Commission
   (Case T-734/16)
   (2016/C 462/47)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Vassilia Argyraki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, avocat)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Office for the administration and payment of individual entitlements (PMO) of 29 January 2016;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant invokes two pleas.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea, relating to the second period during which the applicant acted as a member of the auxiliary staff, according to which the contested decision is based on a non-existent legal basis, since there is no condition relating to a change of institution in Commission Conclusion No 229/04 of 7 April 2004, Article 4(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, or in the case-law. Consequently, that part of the contested measure is unlawful and should be annulled.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea, relating to the first period during which the applicant acted as a member of the auxiliary staff, according to which the condition applied by the contested decision, namely the non-interruption of the service for more than one year, and provided for by Conclusion No 229/04 infringes Article 4(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, as interpreted by the case-law. Consequently, that part of the contested measure is unlawful and should be annulled.