CELEX: 62019TN0694
Language: en
Date: 2019-10-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-694/19: Action brought on 9 October 2019 — FI v Commission

25.11.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 399/102
            
         
      Action brought on 9 October 2019 — FI v Commission
      (Case T-694/19)
      (2019/C 399/121)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: FI (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of 8 March 2019, the decision of 1 April 2019, and the decision of 12 August 2019;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Commission to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of his action against the Commission’s decisions of 8 March, 1 April and 12 August 2019 refusing to grant him a survivor’s pension, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that Articles 18 to 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) are unlawful because they are in breach of the principle of equal treatment and discriminate on the grounds of age, the nature of the legal relationship of a couple’s life together, and disability.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in applying Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in that the Commission should have interpreted those provisions as referring to living together as a married couple, whether the couple is married, in a civil partnership, or cohabiting.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging an error in interpreting the concept of a spouse for the purpose of the system applicable to the survivor’s pension, on the ground that the evolution of Western society calls for a broad interpretation of that concept.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment resulting from a failure to take account of the applicant’s individual situation. The applicant argues in that regard, first, that he lived with his wife for more than 19 years and, second, that their marriage lasted 4 years, 7 months and 8 days.