CELEX: C2004/201/39
Language: en
Date: 2004-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-179/04: Action brought on 17 May 2004 by Siegfried Krahl against the Commission of the European Communities

7.8.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 201/18
            
         Action brought on 17 May 2004 by Siegfried Krahl against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-179/04)
   (2004/C 201/39)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 May 2004 by Siegfried Krahl, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the Commission's decision to recover the daily subsistence allowances paid to the applicant during the period when temporary accommodation was made available to him;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official of the Commission, took up his post in the Commission's delegation to Zagreb on 2 February 2002 and until 19 September 2002 stayed in accommodation made available by the Commission. By the contested decision, the Commission decided to recover the daily subsistence allowances paid to the applicant during that period on the ground that he was not entitled to them, as he had stayed in an apartment provided by the Commission.
   In support of his action, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. He alleges that the Commission made the accommodation available only on a temporary basis, without security of tenure, and that he was therefore not prevented from receiving the daily subsistence allowances. He further claims that there has been an infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, on the ground that the Commission gave him specific assurances concerning payment of the daily subsistence allowances while he was staying in the apartment in question.