Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/3883

21.7.2025

(Case T-306/25)

(C/2025/3883)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: UL and seven other applicants (represented by: A. Guillerme, T. Bontinck and F. Patuelli, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—annul the contested decision;

—recognise the applicants’ entitlement to the education allowance for their children under five years of age, calculated in accordance with Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations and taking into account the exceptional circumstances affecting them;

—order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the implied decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) by which it refused to take into account the crèche and school costs borne by the applicants in respect of the education allowance, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging an error of law in the application of Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, in connection with Article 3(2) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.

—The applicants claim that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in that it applies Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations to the effect that it excludes from its scope the parents of children under the age of three. Such application is incompatible with that provision according to its literal, contextual and teleological interpretation.

2.Second plea in law, alleging an error of law and a manifest error of assessment, and raising a plea of illegality in respect of the provisions of the EU Delegations’ Guide.

—The applicants claim that the EEAS erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in that it set a ceiling for the education allowance provided for in Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations that is two times lower than the ceiling provided for in that provision. The applicants plead that the EU Delegations’ Guide is unlawful in that it sets the same ceiling.

3.Third plea in law, alleging an error of law, a manifest error of assessment and a breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials by the EEAS in finding that the applicants’ situation is not exceptional.

—According to the applicants, the EEAS erred in law, made a manifest error of assessment and breached its duty to have regard for the welfare of officials by automatically and in all circumstances depriving the parents of children under three years of age of the possibility of having exceptional circumstances recognised that would justify exceeding the ceiling in the Staff Regulations. That decision requires officials to bear almost all the education costs for children under three years of age.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging conflict with higher-ranking provisions.

—On the basis of the interpretation of the provision concerned as defended by the defendant, the position and approach taken in the EU Delegations’ Guide, in addition to the complaints already set out, is discriminatory and disproportionate, and runs counter to the principles of gender equality, effectiveness and legal certainty.

5.Fifth plea in law, raising a plea of illegality.

—In the alternative, should the Court consider that the contested decision follows from a correct interpretation of the provisions of the Staff Regulations, the applicants raise a plea of illegality in respect of the provision concerned and of Article 3(2) of Annex VII with regard to staff in delegations, in that those provisions, taken together, infringe the general principles of equal treatment and proportionality, and the principles of gender equality, legal certainty and effectiveness.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3883/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—