CELEX: 62019CN0517
Language: en
Date: 2019-07-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-517/19 P: Appeal brought on 8 July 2019 by Maria Alvarez y Bejarano and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2019 in Joined Cases T-516/16 and T-536/16, Alvarez y Bejarano and Others v Commission

21.10.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 357/14
            
         
      Appeal brought on 8 July 2019 by Maria Alvarez y Bejarano and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2019 in Joined Cases T-516/16 and T-536/16, Alvarez y Bejarano and Others v Commission
      (Case C-517/19 P)
      (2019/C 357/20)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellants: Maria Alvarez y Bejarano, Ana-Maria Enescu, Lucian Micu, Angelica Livia Salanta, Svetla Shulga, Soldimar Urena de Poznanski, Angela Vakalis, Luz Anamaria Chu, Marli Bertolete, Maria Castro Capcha, Hassan Orfe El, Evelyne Vandevoorde (represented by: S. Orlandi, T. Martin, lawyers)
      
         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union, European Parliament
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellants claim that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the judgment under appeal;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision no longer to allow the appellants, as of 2014, travelling time or reimbursement of annual travel expenses;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Commission to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a number of errors of law.
      Firstly, the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 67 and 75 of the judgment in limiting the extent of the judicial review it is required to carry out to ‘manifest’ cases.
      Secondly, the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 70 to 73 of the judgment in finding that the appellants were not in a comparable situation to staff members who retained the benefit of travelling time and reimbursement of their annual travel expenses.
      Thirdly, the General Court erred in law in finding, in paragraphs 69 and 80 to 86 of the judgment, that the regulations at issue do not infringe the principle of proportionality.