CELEX: 62018TN0592
Language: en
Date: 2018-09-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-592/18: Action brought on 28 September 2018 — Wywiał-Prząda v Commission

26.11.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 427/98
            
         
      Action brought on 28 September 2018 — Wywiał-Prząda v Commission
      (Case T-592/18)
      (2018/C 427/129)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Katarzyna Wywiał-Prząda (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of 23 November 2017 refusing her the benefit of the expatriation allowance;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the European Commission 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, alleging the infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, as interpreted by the judgment of 21 June 2007, Commission v Hosman-Chevalier (C-424/05 P, EU:C:2007:367), on the ground that the period during which she resided in Belgium during the reference period with diplomatic status is comparable to a circumstance ‘arising from work done for another State or for an international organisation’.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, raised in the alternative should that period not be capable of being discounted, alleging the infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, on the ground that it must be found, in any event, that she did not, during the reference period, intend to confer on her presence in Belgium, inextricably linked to her husband’s diplomatic mission, the stable character inherent in the concept of habitual residence.