Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/4567

(Case C-299/25 P)

(C/2025/4567)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: UL, UM, UN, UO, UP, UQ, UR (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme, F. Patuelli, avocats)

Other party: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court of Justice should:

—set aside the judgment under appeal, including in so far as it ordered the appellants to pay the costs;

—give final judgment in the dispute at issue and uphold the form of order sought by the appellants at first instance requesting:

—annulment of the contested decisions;

—by virtue of its unlimited jurisdiction in disputes of a financial nature, recognise the appellants’ entitlement to the education allowance for the school year for the periods specified in their applications, in order to cover the actual education costs of their children under the age of five, taking into account the ceiling provided for in the provision at issue corresponding to three times the doubled maximum education allowance provided for in Article 3(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as well as the exceptional circumstances affecting them;

—order the respondent to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants put forward three grounds of appeal.

The first ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations

The appellants submit that the General Court erred in law by interpreting the relevant provision in such a way as to exclude from its scope EU staff serving in a third country who have a dependent child under the age of five. That interpretation is based on a literal, teleological and systemic analysis of the provision, taking into account its origin.

The second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in the application of the principles of equality and proportionality, and of the obligation to interpret in a manner consistent with hierarchically superior norms

The appellants submit that the General Court erred in law in applying the principles of equality and proportionality to the provision at issue in that it creates a difference in treatment among EU officials and other members of staff. The appellants also claim that the General Court failed in its obligation to favour an interpretation of the provision at issue capable of ensuring its compatibility with hierarchically superior norms.

The third ground of appeal, alleging a plea of illegality on the basis of Article 277 TFEU

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4567/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—