CELEX: 62021TN0685
Language: en
Date: 2021-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-685/21: Action brought on 18 October 2021 — IR v Commission

10.1.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 11/32
            
         
      Action brought on 18 October 2021 — IR v Commission
      (Case T-685/21)
      (2022/C 11/45)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicants: IR (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Pappas, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of 11 December 2020 by which the Brussels Settlement Office refused the renewal of the serious illness scheme in respect of the applicant’s son;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of 8 July 2021 by which the appointing authority rejected the applicant’s complaint filed under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Commission to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are based unlawfully on the second opinion of the Medical Officer.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the contested decisions.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are, according to the applicant, vitiated by manifest errors of assessment and a distortion of the facts.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration and the right to be heard.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are based unlawfully on an opinion of the Medical Council.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the administrative procedure.