CELEX: C2006/154/55
Language: en
Date: 2006-07-01 00:00:00
Title: Case F-120/05: Action brought on  19 December 2005  — Kyriazis v Commission

1.7.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 154/23
            
         Action brought on 19 December 2005 — Kyriazis v Commission
   (Case F-120/05)
   (2006/C 154/55)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Antonios Kyriazis (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Spanakis, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul decision ADMIN.B.2. — D (05) 23023/EGL-ade of 12 October 2005, by which the Appointing Authority rejected the applicant's complaint R/549/05 against the defendant's refusal, on 25 April 2005, of his request to be granted the expatriation allowance (16 %);
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance with retroactive effect from 1 March 2005, plus interest for late payment at the annual rate of 10 %, until it is paid in full;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Acknowledge the applicant's entitlement to the expatriation allowance (16 % of the net basic salary) in the future.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official employed in Luxembourg, contests the decision refusing him payment of the expatriation allowance. He disputes the defendant's argument that he does not meet the conditions referred to in Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations by reason of the fact that, during a period of five years ending six months before his engagement by the Community institutions, he was a permanent resident in Luxembourg and carried on there his usual main occupation.
   The applicant also claims that the work he carried out in Luxembourg in the defendant's building, during which he was employed by a company governed by private law, should be regarded as falling within the derogation provided for in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.