EU Law Case T-592/18 Overview

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What is the main action the applicant is seeking from the Court?

To annul the contested decision (correct)

To require the Commission to apologize

To dismiss the action against her

To extend her diplomatic status

When did the applicant claim her diplomatic status began?

1 May 2009

22 September 2000

22 September 2010 (correct)

16 June 2013

What plea does the applicant raise in relation to her diplomatic status?

Alleging a violation of privacy rights

Seeking increased diplomatic privileges

Alleging infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII (correct)

Challenging employment terms in Belgium

What concept is the second part of the applicant's plea related to?

Habitual residence (C) Signup and view all the answers

What date did the applicant surrender her diplomatic passport?

16 June 2013 (A) Signup and view all the answers

What does the Commission argue should be the outcome of the Court's proceedings?

The Court should dismiss the action (C) Signup and view all the answers

What significant effect would excluding the applicant's diplomatic status period have had?

It would change the reference period for her calculation (C) Signup and view all the answers

What event took place on 9 July 2019?

The oral part of the procedure was held (A) Signup and view all the answers

What is the presumed effect of work performed in another State or for an international organization on the individual’s ties to the State of employment?

It preserves a specific tie to the other State or organization. (B) Signup and view all the answers

Why is the period relating to work done for another State or international organization excluded from consideration?

Because it hinders the creation of lasting ties to the State of employment. (D) Signup and view all the answers

What privileges and immunities did the applicant claim to benefit from?

Privileges designated in the Vienna Convention. (A) Signup and view all the answers

According to previous judgments, to whom does the provision regarding circumstances arising from work done for another State apply?

Only to the actual official entering service. (B) Signup and view all the answers

In the case of De Angelis v Commission, what distinguishes the party concerned from the applicant?

The party concerned did not have diplomatic status. (C) Signup and view all the answers

What is implied about the applicant's diplomatic status concerning her ties to the State of employment?

It hinders the creation of lasting ties. (D) Signup and view all the answers

What legal framework does the applicant cite to support her claims?

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. (C) Signup and view all the answers

How does the applicant interpret her diplomatic status in relation to Article 4(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations?

It fits within the criteria outlined in the article. (C) Signup and view all the answers

What does the applicant argue regarding directing discussion groups?

It did not qualify as an occupation. (B) Signup and view all the answers

How does the Commission view the applicant's activity of directing discussion groups?

As a paid occupation. (D) Signup and view all the answers

What does Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations include?

Objective criteria to assess newly recruited officials. (A) Signup and view all the answers

Which of the following judgments illustrate the application of the occupation criterion in the Staff Regulations?

All the above-listed judgments (C) Signup and view all the answers

What significant event happened to the applicant on 16 June 2013?

She was registered on the Belgian population registers. (B) Signup and view all the answers

What distinguishes the legal position of the applicant from that of her husband?

The applicant was permitted to engage in professional activities while her husband was not. (A) Signup and view all the answers

Why is the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations considered irrelevant in this case?

The spouse of the applicant does not perform duties as a diplomatic agent. (C) Signup and view all the answers

What concept is examined in relation to the expatriation of the husband and wife?

The degree of integration of a person in their host country. (B) Signup and view all the answers

How does the applicant argue about the expatriation of diplomatic agents versus their spouses?

There should be equal treatment of both individuals with respect to expatriation. (B) Signup and view all the answers

What is implied as a key factor in the concept of expatriation?

The professional responsibilities in the host country. (D) Signup and view all the answers

What does the applicant claim regarding her husband's integration compared to hers?

She has a wider range of opportunities to integrate into Belgian society. (D) Signup and view all the answers

In what manner is the status of the applicant and her husband considered different?

The applicant has active engagement while her husband is restricted. (D) Signup and view all the answers

What might hinder a diplomatic agent's spouse from forming ties to their host country?

The spouse's commitment to their home country. (A) Signup and view all the answers

What argument cannot the applicant successfully make regarding her husband's recruitment?

They were in the same legal and factual situation. (B) Signup and view all the answers

How does expatriation relate to diplomatic status according to the content?

Expatriation is independent of diplomatic status. (C) Signup and view all the answers

What was determined as the reference period for the applicant?

1 March 2012 to 28 February 2017 (B) Signup and view all the answers

What must be true for the applicant to be considered under the expatriation allowance?

She must demonstrate intention of lasting presence. (A) Signup and view all the answers

What was rejected in the applicant's plea?

The notion of habitual residence. (B) Signup and view all the answers

Why was the applicant's plea regarding diplomatic status not favored?

She did not intend for her presence in Belgium to be lasting. (A) Signup and view all the answers

What was the main reason for the AECE's decision regarding the reference period?

To accurately reflect her legal situation. (D) Signup and view all the answers

What role does habitual residence play in the applicant's plea?

It must be established for eligibility. (A) Signup and view all the answers

What is the concept of habitual residence primarily based on?

The intention to establish a lasting center of interests (B) Signup and view all the answers

Which of the following indicates the applicant's integration into Belgium?

Remaining in Belgium for her son's schooling (B) Signup and view all the answers

Why does the payment of accommodation costs by the Republic of Poland not negate the applicant's integration?

Because it does not affect social relations with Belgium (A) Signup and view all the answers

What does the applicant's participation in the voluntary sector signify?

A step towards establishing a career in Belgium (A) Signup and view all the answers

In legal terms, how is 'residence' defined beyond merely living in a place?

Includes intention for continuity and stable social relations (C) Signup and view all the answers

What is meant by the 'habitual center of interests'?

The place where personal and family interests converge (C) Signup and view all the answers

Which aspect is least likely to influence the assessment of habitual residence?

The availability of subsidized housing (B) Signup and view all the answers

Following the return of her husband to Poland, what was a key reason for the applicant to stay in Belgium?

To ensure her son could continue his schooling (C) Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) - 28 November 2019

Case: T-592/18, Katarzyna Wywiał-Prząda v European Commission
Applicant: Katarzyna Wywiał-Prząda, a Polish national residing in Belgium
Defendant: European Commission
Dispute: Refusal to grant expatriation allowance (23 November 2017)
Issue: Whether the applicant is entitled to an expatriation allowance based on her diplomatic status and work for another state

Background to the Dispute

Applicant arrived in Belgium in 2010, accompanying her husband who worked as a diplomatic advisor to the Polish delegation of NATO
Held a diplomatic passport, from July 2010
Worked for the Polish representation to the EU (January 2011 - December 2011)
Later worked for two Belgian companies that contractually worked for the EU (June 2014 - August 2017)
Recruited by the EU Commission in September 2017
Husband returned to Poland September 2016

Procedure

Application lodged at the court registry in September 2018
Commission lodged its defense in December 2018
Applicant lodged a reply in February 2019
Commission lodged a rejoinder in April 2019
Oral arguments presented in July 2019

Law

Expatriation allowance: Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations
- Applies to officials who are not nationals of the state in whose territory they work and haven't habitually resided or carried on their main occupation in that state for 5 years prior
- Excludes time spent working for another state or international organization
Habitual residence: The length of time the applicant lived in Belgium was a deciding factor, and whether it was permanent or temporary. Documents suggest that this was not a deciding factor, as it was not explicitly stated in the case.
Diplomatic status: The applicant enjoyed diplomatic status until June 2013.
Vienna Convention: The applicant argued that her status as a spouse of a diplomatic agent meant she benefited from the privileges and immunities under the Vienna Convention, which should exempt the time from the calculation of the reference period.
Expatriation: The court determined that the applicant didn't meet the conditions for claiming the allowance because her stay was not a continuous or permanent type of residence

Judgment

The application was dismissed
The applicant was ordered to pay costs

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

Explore the judgment of the General Court regarding the case T-592/18, where Katarzyna Wywiał-Prząda contested the European Commission's refusal to grant an expatriation allowance. This quiz covers the background, procedural history, and key issues related to diplomatic status and allowances for expatriates working for EU bodies.