CELEX: 62018TN0543
Language: en
Date: 2018-09-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-543/18: Action brought on 17 September 2018 — XK v Commission

5.11.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 399/52
            
         
      Action brought on 17 September 2018 — XK v Commission
      (Case T-543/18)
      (2018/C 399/66)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: XK (represented by N. de Montigny, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  Declare and order that the individual decision to cease to grant reimbursement of the education costs connected with the applicant’s children as from the 2017/18 school year, put into effect for the first time via the applicant’s salary statement of November 2017, with reasons given in an email of 7 November 2017, is annulled;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical expenses, in so far as the defendant’s changed interpretation infringed acquired rights, legitimate expectations, legal certainty and the principle of sound administration.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the child, the right to family life and the right to education.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging failure effectively to weigh up interests and failure to comply with the principle of proportionality, by which the contested decision is vitiated.