CELEX: C2005/296/58
Language: en
Date: 2005-11-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-336/05: Action brought on  5 September 2005  — De Soeten v Council

26.11.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 296/27
            
         Action brought on 5 September 2005 — De Soeten v Council
   (Case T-336/05)
   (2005/C 296/58)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant(s): Henders De Soeten (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)
   
      Defendant(s): Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the Council's decision rejecting the applicant's request for early retirement without any reduction in her pension rights;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is a former official of the Council, who has been in retirement since 1 July 2004. She submitted an application for entitlement to the measure referred to in Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, which enables the Appointing Authority, in the interests of the service and on the basis of objective criteria and transparent procedures introduced by means of general implementing provisions, not to apply the reduction in pension provided for in Article 9(1)(b) to officials leaving the service before the age of 63.
   By her action, the applicant contests the decision refusing to grant her that benefit. She submits that one of the candidates who qualified for that measure was assigned to the same department. The applicant therefore takes the view that the requirements of the service were the same in both cases and asserts that the above mentioned article and the general implementing provisions adopted by the Council have been infringed, since both her length of service and her merits were greater than those of the other candidate.
   In addition, the applicant alleges that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in so far as it held that the assessment of the criterion of the requirements of the service meant that regard should be had to the individual qualities of officials.