CELEX: 62017TN0170
Language: en
Date: 2017-03-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-170/17: Action brought on 20 March 2017 — RW v Commission

22.5.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 161/30
            
         Action brought on 20 March 2017 — RW v Commission
   (Case T-170/17)
   (2017/C 161/43)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: RW (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the decision of 2 March 2017 whereby the applicant is automatically retired with effect from 1 June 2017;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging manifest infringement of Articles 47 and 52 of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the applicant had not yet reached the statutory retirement age at the time that the contested decision was adopted.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging failure to have regard to the scope of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the defendant was of the view that that provision applied to officials who, although having reached the retirement age (that is to say that they may apply for retirement without a reduction to their pension rights), have not yet reached the age at which the appointing authority is required to retire them (ex officio).
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, since the defendant did not give any sufficient indication enabling the applicant or the General Court to review the merits of the statement that it had carried out an in-depth analysis of the needs of the Commission’s other services, whereby it concluded that a new post in one of those services corresponding to the applicant’s current skills could not be provided for.