Action brought on 21 November 2023 – AH v Commission

(Case T-1093/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: AH (represented by: A. Guillerme, T. Bontinck and L. Burguin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of the European Commission of 9 February 2023 not to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance;

recognise the applicant’s entitlement to the expatriation allowance as from 1 February 2023;

order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 5 000 in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and a manifest error of assessment. The applicant submits that the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) made an error of law and a manifest error of assessment on the ground that it did not take into account that there was no interruption in time between the two contracts that were signed with two different institutions.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of good administration, including the right to be heard. According to the applicant, the PMO breached the principle of good administration by informing him that his entitlement to the expatriation allowance would be automatically renewed when he took up his new post, only to change its position three days later and refuse to grant him that allowance. Next, the applicant submits that the PMO infringed his right to be heard in that the decision no longer to grant him the expatriation allowance was adopted without hearing him beforehand.

____________