CELEX: 62018TA0432
Language: en
Date: 2019-10-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-432/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2019 —Palo v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Pensions — Pension scheme — Severance grant — Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Duty of care)

23.12.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 432/44
            
         
      Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2019 —Palo v Commission
      (Case T-432/18) (1)
      
      (Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Pensions - Pension scheme - Severance grant - Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination - Legitimate expectations - Principle of good administration - Duty of care)
      (2019/C 432/50)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Peeter Palo (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and D. Milanowska, Agents)
      
         Re:
      
      Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 5 October 2017 not to pay the applicant the severance grant provided for in Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in the version resulting from Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), and annulment of the Commission’s decision of 10 April 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against that decision and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following those decisions.
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      The Court:
      
                  1.
               
               
                  
                     Dismisses the action;
                  
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  
                     Orders Mr Peeter Palo to pay the costs.
                  
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.