Action brought on 1st September 2006 - Erbežnik v European Parliament

(Case F-106/06)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: Anže Erbežnik (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Peče, Lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament No 110029 of 1st June 2006;

deliver a ruling in which the applicant is identified as a person who had a lawful non-marital relationship recognised by the primary and secondary rules of EU legislation with Miss H. (now Mrs Erbežnik) from the start of his work as a Lawyer Linguist for the European Parliament and therefore has right to a full payment by the European Parliament of his installation allowance as it is provided for married officials and is being calculated on the basis of the household allowance;

alternatively, deliver a decision whereby the European Parliament is obliged to take into account the change in the family status of the applicant (his marriage) in accordance with the principle of proportionality and provide him the full amount on installation allowance (for married officials) for the parts of the installation allowance paid after his marriage in August 2005;

order the defendant to pay default interest;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

From the time of his recruitment in Slovenia by the European Parliament in September 2003, and prior, the applicant had a stable non-marital relationship with his girl-friend, who became his wife in August 2005. The applicant alleges that this relationship would be legally recognised by Slovenian law.

At the beginning of his employment at the European Parliament, the applicant asked for a household allowance, which was refused on the ground that such an allowance was reserved for married couples and same-sex non-marital relationships in accordance with Article 1 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations. In May 2005 he applied for an installation allowance, which is equal to two months' basic salary in the case of an official who is entitled to the household allowance, and equal to one month's basic salary in other cases. He was granted the first part of the installation allowance (which is paid in three parts, one part per year) provided for singles. After his marriage, he applied for the part of the installation allowance that is granted to married staff but he was denied on the grounds the change in his family status war posterior to the end of his probationary period.

In support of his action, the applicant relies mainly on the following pleas in law:

first, invalidity of Article 1 (2) (c) and 1 (2) (d) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations and alternatively wrong interpretation of those articles by the defendant's administration due to infringements of basic Community concepts such as free movements of workers, citizenship of the European Union and free movement of persons, prohibition of discrimination and unequal treatment, and non-respect of basic human rights and of principle of proportionality;

Secondly, wrong interpretation of the date of the end of the probationary period as an absolute definitive date for the installation allowance although the payments themselves are being carried out in a three years period.

____________