Communication: new case No. 0020 of 2022

IDENTIFIER
62022TN0020
LANGUAGE
English
COURT
General Court
AG OPINION
NO
REFERENCES MADE
2
REFERENCED
0
DOCUMENT TYPE
Communication: new case

Judgment



28.2.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/42


Action brought on 12 January 2022 — NW v Commission

(Case T-20/22)

(2022/C 95/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: NW (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decisions in so far as they include the recovery of the sums paid to the applicant;

order the Commission to repay to the applicant the sums already recovered;

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings;

in the alternative, annul the contested decisions in so far as they include the recovery of the sum of EUR 3 986,72;

moreover, the applicant seeks the payment of interest on any sum which will be paid to him as from the moment each sum should have been paid to him until actual payment;

if the Court dismisses the present action — in the light of the multiple irregularities committed by the PMO over time, the fact that ‘a tax allowance is not easily detectable on a payslip’, the assurances given by the PMO to the applicant, the applicant’s good faith which the administration accepts and the fact that the applicant (having no reason to doubt the amount of his salary) made financial commitments proportionate to such a salary level during those years (such as taking out a mortgage for the purchase of a house for his family) — the applicant submits that, in the interest of fairness, the Court should order the Commission to bear at least its own costs and to pay those of the applicant pursuant to Article 135 of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decisions of the Commission of 6 and 9 April 2021 and of 4 May 2021 to recover the sums unduly paid to him in respect of the tax allowance for his children, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging erroneous interpretation and application of Article 85 of the Regulations of Officials of the European Union. The applicant submits in that regard that the conditions laid down in Article 85 to permit the recovery of sums paid but not due are not met.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations in that, in the present case, the three conditions to characterise legitimate expectations under the applicable legislation are met.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons.



Citations

Sign up for a free moonlit.ai™ account to access all citing documents.