Action brought on 6 January 2014 – Bos and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-23/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Mark Bos (Ankara, Turkey); Estelle Kadouch (Jerusalem, Israel); Siegfried Krahl (Lago Sul, Brazil); and Eric Lunel (Dakar, Senegal) (represented by: F. Krenc)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

accordingly, annul Regulation No 10223/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013, amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, in so far as it amends Annex X thereto (Art.1, No 70);

order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants – contractual agents and officials in European Union delegations – rely on six pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of equal treatment, Articles 20, 21 and 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), in so far as the reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union introduces dramatic and savage cuts to the right to annual leave for officials and other servants serving in a third country. The applicants claim that the contested regulation does not take into account the specific situation of those officials and servants.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom (‘the ECHR’) and Articles 7 and 31(2) of the Charter, in so far as the reform of the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants does not respect the applicants’ private and family life, since their right to annual leave has been cut by almost one half, and that reduction unduly obstructs their private and family life.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in that the advantages related to serving in a third country – which led to the choice of the applicants – have suddenly disappeared with the reform of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 12, 27 and 28 of the Charter and Article 11 of the ECHR on account of the lack of information, consultation and cooperation during the procedure which led to the reform of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.

Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principles of sound legislation and, in particular, the duty of thoroughness and the duty to state reasons, both on account of the lack of information and proper consultation of the Staff Regulations Committee and the unions during the procedure which led to the reform of Annex X to the Staff Rules and by the failure to state the reasons for the decisions relating to that annex.