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
EN
(2016/C 462/47)
Language of the case: French
Applicant: Vassilia Argyraki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, avocat)
Defendant: European Commission
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the decision of the Office for the administration and payment of individual entitlements (PMO) of 29 January 2016;
—order the Commission to pay the costs.
In support of the action, the applicant invokes two pleas.
1.First plea, relating to the second period during which the applicant acted as a member of the auxiliary staff, according to which the contested decision is based on a non-existent legal basis, since there is no condition relating to a change of institution in Commission Conclusion No 229/04 of 7 April 2004, Article 4(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, or in the case-law. Consequently, that part of the contested measure is unlawful and should be annulled.
2.Second plea, relating to the first period during which the applicant acted as a member of the auxiliary staff, according to which the condition applied by the contested decision, namely the non-interruption of the service for more than one year, and provided for by Conclusion No 229/04 infringes Article 4(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, as interpreted by the case-law. Consequently, that part of the contested measure is unlawful and should be annulled.