Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-86/13 P of The General Court, March 15, 2013

• Resolution Date: March 15, 2013
• Issuing Organization: The General Court
• Decision Number: T-86/13 P

Appeal brought on 4 February 2013 by Diana Grazyte against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 December 2012 in Case F-76/11 Grazyte v Commission

(Case T-86/13 P)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Diana Grazyte (Utena, Lithuania) (represented by R. Guarino, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 December 2012 in Case F-76/11 Grazyte v Commission;

Annul the decision of the Director of DG HR D, acting as the authority responsible for concluding contracts of employment, of 29 April 2011 and, as a consequence, declare that the appellant is entitled to the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities;

In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a decision;

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

1. First ground of appeal, alleging breach and/or misinterpretation of Community law with regard to the rules on the interpretation of law and the rationale of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, and failure to state reasons.

   - It is submitted in this regard that both the wording of the provision in question (which refers to 'reasons other than the performance of duties in the service of a State or of an international organisation') and the rationale of that provision have the effect of excluding from the allowance any person who has left his country of origin without establishing a lasting tie with the country to which he has moved precisely because he was employed by an international organisation. It is not possible, on the basis of the wording, the logic or indeed the rationale of that provision, to arrive at the conclusion, as did the Tribunal in the judgment under appeal, that periods following employment in the service of an international organisation are to be disregarded when the move occurred, as in the present case, for personal reasons.

2. Second ground of appeal, alleging breach and/or misinterpretation of Community law with regard to the classification of Agencies as international organisations for the purpose of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Rules.

   - It is submitted in...