EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/53

(Case T-546/18)

(2018/C 399/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: XM and 26 other applicants (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—Annul the decisions adversely affecting the various applicants consisting of the decisions of the appointing authority not to grant them reimbursement of school fees for the year 2017/2018, which were made in various ways according to the specific circumstances of each of the applicants:

—either by means of an individual decision (and more specifically an email) specifically indicating the refusal of the reimbursement;

—or by the reference to ‘processed’ in their Sysper account and considered as a rejection decision by the applicant since the subsequent salary slip, in the following month (at the earliest on the 10th with regard to the date of transmission of the salary slips) does not include any reimbursement or only a reimbursement of transport costs;

—or by a total failure to process the application which is considered, after four months from the date of its submission, to be implicitly rejected;

—Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

—First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of the European Union and of the general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical expenses, in so far as the amended interpretation by the defendant was in breach of acquired rights, legitimate expectations, legal certainty and the principle of good administration.

—Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the child, and of the right to family life and the right to education.

—Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination,

—Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to effectively weigh up the interests of the applicants and a failure to comply with the principle of proportionality.