Key facts of the case
Appeal — Civil service — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Refusal to reimburse education costs — Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Union.
Outcome of the case
Having regard to the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should:
(1) dismiss the appeal;
(2) order Ms Irit Azoulay, Mr Andrew Boreham, Ms Mirja Bouchard and Mr Darren Neville, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament
69) The appellants claim, next, that the General Court failed to adjudicate on the alleged infringement of Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which requires that the European Union is to respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. I consider that although the appellants do indeed refer to that provision in their application before the General Court in the context of the second part of the third plea, relating to the breach of the principle of sound administration, they do so in terms that are too hypothetical and general for it to be possible to consider that they claim that there has been an infringement of that provision. The General Court cannot therefore be criticised for not having adjudicated in that regard.