- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-17/24: Action brought on 8 January 2024 — UL and Others v EEAS
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0017
62024TN0017
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
Series C
C/2024/2047
18.3.2024
(Case T-17/24)
(C/2024/2047)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: UL and six other applicants (represented by: A. Guillerme, T. Bontinck and F. Patuelli, lawyers)
Defendant: European External Action Service
Forms of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—annul the contested decisions;
—recognise the applicants’ entitlement to the education allowance for their children who are under five years old, calculated in accordance with Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations and taking the exceptional circumstances concerning them into account;
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action against the decisions 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 four 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 of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and a plea of illegality in respect of the provisions of the EU Delegations’ Guide relating to the education allowance.
2.Second plea in law, alleging an error of law and a manifest error of assessment by the EEAS by applying a lower threshold than that provided for in Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, and a plea of illegality in respect of the provisions of the EU Delegations’ Guide relating to the education allowance.
3.Third plea in law, alleging an error of law, a manifest error of assessment and a breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials by the EEAS when finding that the applicants were not exceptional within the meaning of Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination between (i) parents of children aged three to five and parents of children under three years old and (ii) between parents of children under five years old and parents of children over five years old, and also alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2047/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)