CELEX: 62017TN0706
Language: en
Date: 2017-10-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-706/17: Action brought on 11 October 2017 — UP v Commission

8.1.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 5/49
            
         Action brought on 11 October 2017 — UP v Commission
   (Case T-706/17)
   (2018/C 005/67)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: UP (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Declare the present application admissible and well-founded;
            
         Consequently:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of 26 April in which DG HR opposed the applicant’s application for part-time work for medical reasons;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul, if necessary, the decision of 12 July 2017 rejecting the appeal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the compensation of the applicant’s pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss following from those decisions, estimated, subject to re-assessment, at the sum of EUR 8 800;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay all the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, divided into two parts.
   The first part alleges infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination and infringement of the right to be heard, in that the Appointing Authority based its decision on rules showing cases different from the applicant’s without having heard her or allowed her to put forward her observations to influence the content of the proposed decision and, in consequence, infringed her rights of the defence.
   The second part alleges infringement of the principle of sound administration and the duty of care, and a manifest error of assessment of the facts committed by the Appointing Authority, in that it could have considered the allowances for incapacity for work in the light of the general rules of reimbursement of the Joint Rules. The applicant is of the opinion that there is no statutory provision which prevents those allowances from being accumulated with the income drawn from her professional activity, on the ground that her medical situation and her degree of incapacity do not correspond to the medical invalidity criteria provided for in the Staff Regulations of Officials.