Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/2228

22.4.2025

(Case T-136/25)

(C/2025/2228)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: HV (represented by: L. Levi and M. Itani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision set out in the pay slip for June 2024 determining annual travel expenses based on the distance between her place of employment and her place of origin in Abidjan (Côte d’Ivoire) only as from 2024 and not also in respect of the years 2014 to 2023;

—in so far as is necessary, annul the decision of 15 November 2024 rejecting the complaint;

—order the defendant to reimburse the applicant’s annual travel expenses based on the distance between her place of employment and her place of origin in respect of the years 2014 to 2023, that amount to be increased by default interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations;

—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.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination.

The judgment of 18 April 2024, Dumitrescu and Others v Commission and Court of Justice (C-567/22 P to C-570/22 P, EU:C:2024:336), declared the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations to be illegal. That provision introduced an arbitrary distinction to the detriment of officials whose place of origin is outside the European Union, since the payment of the abovementioned expenses is calculated on the basis of a criterion that has no connection with the place of origin of officials;

The EESC, which was not one of the parties to the cases that led to the judgment in Dumitrescu and Schwarz, decided, on account of that judgment, no longer to apply the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, but only as from 2024, and not also retroactively in respect of the years 2014 to 2023;

According to the applicant, in taking that decision, which is set out in the pay slip for June 2024, the EESC replicated the arbitrary distinction censured by the Court of Justice.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care.

The applicant submits that, when the defendant assessed what action it would take in response to the judgment in Dumitrescu and Schwarz, it manifestly failed to take the applicant’s interests into account.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2228/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—