16.3.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/28

—

(Case T-782/14 P)

(2015/C 089/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: DF (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. von Zwehl, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2014 in Case F-91/13 DF v Commission, in so far as the action of the appellant as to the remainder was dismissed by the Tribunal;

—annul the decision of the European Commission of 20 December 2012;

—order the European Commission to reimburse the amounts already recovered by it to the appellant, plus late interest at the European Central Bank rate, increased by 2 points; and

—declare that the European Commission bears all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law:

1.First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and the principle of legal certainty, in that the Civil Service Tribunal, in line with relevant case-law, should have come to the conclusion that it cannot be reasonably argued that one or the other of the two possible interpretations of Article 4 (1) (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, namely whether the reference period of 10 years ends with the initial entry into service or with the entering into service at the entity of secondment, is so manifestly unfounded, that article 85 applies;

2.Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination and of Article 19 TUE, in that, due to the application of diverging and incompatible national and EU law on unjust enrichment, the appellant is discriminated against compared to a situation in which only the national legal order applies, as he is not allowed to invoke against the Commission the fact that enrichment does not exist anymore;

3.Third plea in law, invoking non-contractual liability of the EU, in that by deciding that the overpayment must be considered unlawful and imposing on the applicant to reimburse the overpayment to the Commission, damage to the detriment of the appellant has occurred.

—