CELEX: 62018TN0217
Language: en
Date: 2018-03-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-217/18: Action brought on 28 March 2018 — DK v EEAS

201806010091915462018/C 211/342172018TC21120180618EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180328272711Case T-217/18: Action brought on 28 March 2018 — DK v EEAS
 ---documentbreak--- C2112018EN2710120180328EN0034271271Action brought on 28 March 2018 — DK v EEAS
   (Case T-217/18)2018/C 211/34Language of the case: French
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: DK (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European External Action Service
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
            —
         
         
            Declare and rule:
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     That the decision of 23 May 2017 imposing a disciplinary penalty on the applicant, by which the net amount of his old-age pension is reduced by 20 %, namely a retention of EUR 1015 per month, until 30 September 2025 under Article 9(2) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations is annulled;
                  
               
                     —
                  
                  
                     In the alternative, that the EEAS is ordered to pay the applicant a sum set ex aequo et bono to make good the loss suffered;
                  
               
                     —
                  
                  
                     That, in any event, the EEAS is ordered 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 manifest errors of assessment vitiating the contested decision, in that, firstly, the Appointing Authority took account of damage to the integrity of the institutions caused by the applicant which had already been remedied and, secondly, the duration of the disciplinary penalty imposed is arbitrary as it has been set by reference to the legal retirement age of the applicant.
         
      
            2.
         
         
            Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality vitiating the contested decision by reason of the unlawful failure to take account of the amount of time that has elapsed since the facts occurred, of the infringement of Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations during the criminal proceedings and of the applicant’s family situation.