CELEX: 62022TN0050
Language: en
Date: 2022-01-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-50/22: Action brought on 21 January 2022 — AL v Council and Commission

21.3.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 128/29
            
         
      Action brought on 21 January 2022 — AL v Council and Commission
      (Case T-50/22)
      (2022/C 128/41)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: AL (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: Council of the European Union, European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  partially annul the contested decision of 22 October 2021 in respect of the parts which do not uphold the applicant’s previous complaints against the PMO decisions of 3 March 2021 and 22 March 2021 and, to the extent applicable, order that the follow-up decisions, establishing the exact amount to be recovered, be updated accordingly;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. (1)
                  
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 4, 5, 9 and 10 of the Council Decision of 29 April 2004 adopting the general implementing provisions concerning a person treated as a dependent child, in so far as the applicant’s net income was calculated with regard to other gifts/payments for his past military service and the contribution for maintenance of his mother by another person, giving rise to wrongful deductions under Article 5 of those general implementing provisions in the calculation of the maintenance cost for his mother.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and manifest error of appreciation in respect of the allowance for the applicant’s mother, treated as a dependent child, in the absence of the applicant’s intention to deliberately mislead the administration regarding the sums received for his past military service.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle of legitimate expectations and of the principle of good administration in respect of the allowance for the applicant’s mother, treated as a dependent child, in so far as the administration was aware of the sums that the applicant received for his past military service.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and manifest error of appreciation in respect of the child allowance for A and B for the period from 1 February 2013 to 30 June 2013, in the absence of any proof that the applicant was aware of the termination of the foster care period and therefore in the absence of the applicant’s intention to deliberately mislead the administration regarding the end of the foster care period.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and manifest error of appreciation in respect of the child allowance for C, (i) having regard to the fact that it is proven to the satisfaction of the administration that C is ‘actually being maintained’ by the applicant and (ii) in the absence of any proof of the applicant’s alleged intention to deliberately mislead the administration.
               
            
         (1)  The application refers, in the order sought, to ‘the defendant’ (singular).