CELEX: 62017TN0017
Language: en
Date: 2017-01-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-17/17: Action brought on 11 January 2017 — Constantinescu v Parliament

6.3.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 70/24
            
         Action brought on 11 January 2017 — Constantinescu v Parliament
   (Case T-17/17)
   (2017/C 070/34)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Radu Constantinescu (Kreuzweiler, Germany) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Parliament
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the present application admissible and well founded, and
            
         as a result:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of 27 May 2016 of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics — Luxembourg, registering the applicant’s child at the childcare facilities in Bertrange Mamer and, accordingly, refusing the child’s registration at the Kirchberg childcare facilities;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of 7 October 2016 of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 6 June 2016 against that decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               grant damages in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay all the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, breach of the principle of non-discrimination and infringement of the rules relating to the burden of evidence. In this connection, the applicant alleges that the defendant granted derogations to other families while refusing him such a derogation, without such a difference in treatment being justified by objective circumstances.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment, breach of the principle of sound administration, breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter.