Podcast
Questions and Answers
What does the applicant claim about her family's residence during her husband's diplomatic mission?
What does the applicant claim about her family's residence during her husband's diplomatic mission?
- They were all engaged in gainful occupations at the place of assignment.
- They had their center of interests in Greece. (correct)
- They had been living in the host country for over a year.
- They were habitually residing at the place of assignment.
Which article does the applicant refer to in making her argument about her diplomatic status?
Which article does the applicant refer to in making her argument about her diplomatic status?
- Article 12 of the European Union Treaty.
- Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. (correct)
- Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
- Article 23 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
What consequence does the applicant argue should result from her diplomatic status?
What consequence does the applicant argue should result from her diplomatic status?
- Her family should not have been allowed to reside in the host country.
- Her status creates obstacles to forming lasting ties with the host State. (correct)
- She should have been granted financial support from the host country.
- She should have been considered a permanent resident of the host country.
What does the applicant argue regarding the individual assessment of her situation?
What does the applicant argue regarding the individual assessment of her situation?
What right does the applicant claim is being disregarded in the contested decision?
What right does the applicant claim is being disregarded in the contested decision?
What did the Commission request from the applicant during the pre-litigation procedure?
What did the Commission request from the applicant during the pre-litigation procedure?
What was the reason the three annexed documents submitted by the applicant were deemed inadmissible?
What was the reason the three annexed documents submitted by the applicant were deemed inadmissible?
What does the applicant allege regarding the Commission's interpretation of the expatriation allowance?
What does the applicant allege regarding the Commission's interpretation of the expatriation allowance?
What is one of the pleas in law raised by the applicant?
What is one of the pleas in law raised by the applicant?
In what year did the Commission request the certificate of de-registration from the commune?
In what year did the Commission request the certificate of de-registration from the commune?
How did the applicant support her case regarding the expatriation allowance?
How did the applicant support her case regarding the expatriation allowance?
What period does the applicant claim she was not habitually resident in Brussels?
What period does the applicant claim she was not habitually resident in Brussels?
What is the applicant challenging in her action against the Commission?
What is the applicant challenging in her action against the Commission?
What distinguishes the applicant's situation from that of the applicant in the case of Wywiał-Prząda v Commission?
What distinguishes the applicant's situation from that of the applicant in the case of Wywiał-Prząda v Commission?
What does Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations specifically cover?
What does Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations specifically cover?
Why does the applicant believe her interim employment contracts should not contribute to habitual residence?
Why does the applicant believe her interim employment contracts should not contribute to habitual residence?
Why can't the provisions of Article 4(1)(a) be extended to a partner of an official working for another state?
Why can't the provisions of Article 4(1)(a) be extended to a partner of an official working for another state?
What evidence does the applicant provide to support the temporary nature of her stay in Brussels?
What evidence does the applicant provide to support the temporary nature of her stay in Brussels?
In the case of the applicant who benefited from diplomatic status, what was significant about their employment situation?
In the case of the applicant who benefited from diplomatic status, what was significant about their employment situation?
What was the purpose of the applicant accepting short-term contracts during her stay in Brussels?
What was the purpose of the applicant accepting short-term contracts during her stay in Brussels?
What key factor did the Court of Justice emphasize in determining the applicant's integration issues?
What key factor did the Court of Justice emphasize in determining the applicant's integration issues?
What does the residence certificate issued by the Greek State signify regarding the applicant's stay in Brussels?
What does the residence certificate issued by the Greek State signify regarding the applicant's stay in Brussels?
Which judgment highlighted that special status cannot solely be derived from privileges and immunities?
Which judgment highlighted that special status cannot solely be derived from privileges and immunities?
When did the entire family move to Greece after their time in Brussels?
When did the entire family move to Greece after their time in Brussels?
What aspect of the applicant's situation was specifically noted by the Commission?
What aspect of the applicant's situation was specifically noted by the Commission?
During which specific period did the applicant claim to have no durable occupation?
During which specific period did the applicant claim to have no durable occupation?
What was the conclusion about the applicant's work relations as per Article 4(1)(a)?
What was the conclusion about the applicant's work relations as per Article 4(1)(a)?
What was the applicant's primary concern regarding her habitual residence during her stay in Brussels?
What was the applicant's primary concern regarding her habitual residence during her stay in Brussels?
What did the second sentence of the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) exclude?
What did the second sentence of the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) exclude?
What is the main claim of the applicant in the second plea regarding the Commission's assessment?
What is the main claim of the applicant in the second plea regarding the Commission's assessment?
Which of the following does the applicant assert as evidence of her definitive move from Brussels?
Which of the following does the applicant assert as evidence of her definitive move from Brussels?
What was the Commission's response to the applicant's claim concerning the examination of her documents?
What was the Commission's response to the applicant's claim concerning the examination of her documents?
How did the Commission support its position against the second plea?
How did the Commission support its position against the second plea?
Which action did the PMO take regarding the applicant’s documents?
Which action did the PMO take regarding the applicant’s documents?
What is the outcome of the second plea as mentioned in the content?
What is the outcome of the second plea as mentioned in the content?
What aspect of the applicant's personal situation did the Court consider?
What aspect of the applicant's personal situation did the Court consider?
What does the applicant argue about the Commission's conclusions?
What does the applicant argue about the Commission's conclusions?
What is required for a stay in a country to potentially qualify as habitual residence?
What is required for a stay in a country to potentially qualify as habitual residence?
How does the nature of employment contracts affect the classification of residence?
How does the nature of employment contracts affect the classification of residence?
What was the applicant's living situation during her employment in Brussels?
What was the applicant's living situation during her employment in Brussels?
What type of work were the applicant's temporary contracts related to?
What type of work were the applicant's temporary contracts related to?
What can be inferred about intent from temporary employment contracts that are not for training?
What can be inferred about intent from temporary employment contracts that are not for training?
According to case law, what is necessary for a temporary stay to be classified as habitual residence?
According to case law, what is necessary for a temporary stay to be classified as habitual residence?
What judgment addressed the presumption regarding a person’s intent to change their residence?
What judgment addressed the presumption regarding a person’s intent to change their residence?
Which factor does NOT contribute to establishing habitual residence according to the provided content?
Which factor does NOT contribute to establishing habitual residence according to the provided content?
Flashcards
Expatriation Allowance Eligibility
Expatriation Allowance Eligibility
Criteria for receiving an expatriation allowance based on habitual residence.
Habitual Residence
Habitual Residence
The main place of residency, for a particular period.
Administrative Procedure
Administrative Procedure
Formal process preceding a legal case; for example, the process the Commission initiated before the applicant's case.
Commission's Interpretation
Commission's Interpretation
Signup and view all the flashcards
Annex VII, Article 4(1)(a)
Annex VII, Article 4(1)(a)
Signup and view all the flashcards
Evidence
Evidence
Signup and view all the flashcards
Legal Action Plea
Legal Action Plea
Signup and view all the flashcards
Inadmissible Documents
Inadmissible Documents
Signup and view all the flashcards
Diplomatic Status
Diplomatic Status
Signup and view all the flashcards
Center of Interests
Center of Interests
Signup and view all the flashcards
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
Signup and view all the flashcards
Obstacle to Habitual Residence
Obstacle to Habitual Residence
Signup and view all the flashcards
Applicant's Argument
Applicant's Argument
Signup and view all the flashcards
Applicant's Stay in Brussels
Applicant's Stay in Brussels
Signup and view all the flashcards
Interim Employment
Interim Employment
Signup and view all the flashcards
Applicant's Justification
Applicant's Justification
Signup and view all the flashcards
Evidence of Temporary Stay
Evidence of Temporary Stay
Signup and view all the flashcards
Greek Residence Certificate
Greek Residence Certificate
Signup and view all the flashcards
High Evidential Value
High Evidential Value
Signup and view all the flashcards
Challenge to Commission's Interpretation
Challenge to Commission's Interpretation
Signup and view all the flashcards
Expatriation Allowance
Expatriation Allowance
Signup and view all the flashcards
Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII
Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII
Signup and view all the flashcards
Temporary Stay
Temporary Stay
Signup and view all the flashcards
Practical Training
Practical Training
Signup and view all the flashcards
Professional Services
Professional Services
Signup and view all the flashcards
Manifest Error of Assessment
Manifest Error of Assessment
Signup and view all the flashcards
Applicant's Main Argument
Applicant's Main Argument
Signup and view all the flashcards
Applicant's Justification for Interim Contracts
Applicant's Justification for Interim Contracts
Signup and view all the flashcards
Support Documents
Support Documents
Signup and view all the flashcards
Commission's Response
Commission's Response
Signup and view all the flashcards
Study Notes
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) - 15 October 2020
- Case: T-249/19
- Applicant: Marina Karpeta-Kovalyova, residing in Woluwe-Saint-Pierre (Belgium)
- Defendant: European Commission
- Issue: Decision refusing entitlement to expatriation allowance, daily subsistence allowance, installation allowance, and reimbursement of removal expenses. Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
- Background: Applicant had Ukrainian nationality and acquired Greek nationality. Moved from Ukraine to Brussels (Belgium) in 2009. Worked as interim staff member in Brussels (2016-2017), then employed by the European Commission from August 2017 to July 2018.
- Commission's Decision (14 June 2018): Refused entitlement to allowances due to missing documents. Established applicant's place of origin and recruitment as Brussels.
- Contested Decision (14 June 2018): Applicant was not entitled to allowances due to missing documents (and information) and was asked to re-submit them.
- Applicant's Complaint: Rejected by the appointing authority (10 January 2019).
- Reference Period: February 1, 2012 to February 1, 2017
- Habitual Residence: Applicant argued habitual residence was in Athens, but the appointing authority believed Brussels was the habitual residence based on family and interests.
- Legal Arguments: The applicant argued for the applicability of article 4(1) (a) and related rulings. The Commission argued that the applicant was habitually resident in Brussels.
- Court's Decision/Judgment: Dismissed the action and ordered the applicant to pay costs. The court considered the documents that were submitted
- Key Issues: Criteria for determining habitual residence, diplomatic status impact on residence, temporary employment contracts' impact on habitual residence.
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
Related Documents
Description
Explore the details of the Judgment of the General Court regarding case T-249/19. This quiz covers the refusal of entitlements for expatriation and daily subsistence allowances to applicant Marina Karpeta-Kovalyova. Delve into the implications of her nationality changes and the European Commission's decisions.