JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber)

December 6, 2012
(damages, infringement claim, annulment dispute, parental absence)
In Case C-50/9,
arr! "e#man, establis$ed in %uc$arest (&'mania), represented b! ('nn! )a!, la#!er,
applicant,
*+
&'manian ,tate, represented b! -artin %'nd, la#!er,
defendant,
.cti'n f'r annulment 'f t$e /$e C'urt 'f &'manian ,tate0s Decisi'n 'f 10 -a! 2011 and f'r
damages,
/2 32"2&.4 C56&/
c'mp'sed 'f /'mm! 4ee, 7resident, .nne an89&app'rteur:,
(udges,
$a*ing regard t' t$e #ritten pr'cedure 'n "'*ember 11, 2012,
gi*es t$e f'll'#ing
Judgment
Ba!gr"und t" the di#$ute
1+ 5n 16 -a! 2010, t$e applicant, an a*iat'r fr'm &'manian .ir ;'rce, p'sted abr'ad in
.fg$anistan, claimed fr'm t$e &'manian ,tate a parental lea*e after t$e birt$ 'f $is
first s'n+ is #ife, a public ser*ant, $ad ta8en a lea*e f'r 1 m'nt$s f'r c$ild care but
s$e returned t' $er <'b after#ards+
2+ 5n 10 -a! 2010, t$e defendant #r'ngfull! dismissed t$e applicant0s re=uest arguing
inter alia t$at t$is rig$t is gi*en 'nl! t' t$e #'men a*iat'rs+
1+ 5n 10 (une 2010, t$e applicant made an appeal against t$e infringement 'f t$e
pr'cedure made b! t$e &'manian ,tate+
%r"edure
1+ /$e applicant br'ug$t t$e present acti'n b! applicati'n l'dged at t$e &egistr! 'f t$e
3eneral C'urt 'n > (anuar! 2011+
2+ %! separate d'cument l'dged at t$e C'urt &egistr! 'n 5 ;ebruar! 2011, t$e &'manian
state raised a plea 'f inadmissibilit! pursuant t' .rticle 60 (1) 'f t$e &ules 'f
7r'cedure 'f t$e 3eneral C'urt+
1+ 6p'n $earing t$e rep'rt 'f t$e (udge-&app'rteur, t$e C'urt (/$ird C$amber) decided
t' 'pen t$e 'ral pr'cedure+
?+ /$e applicant claims t$at t$e C'urt s$'uld@
- 'rder t$e &'manian state t' pa! t$e applicant damages in t$e am'unt 'f
26& 10+000
- 'rder t$e &'manian state t' pa! t$e c'sts, e*en if t$e applicati'n is dismissed+
5+ /$e &'manian state c'ntends t$at t$e C'urt s$'uld@
- declare t$e applicati'n and t$e claim f'r damages inadmissibleA
- 'rder t$e applicant t' bear t$e c'sts+
La&
1+ .c'rding t$e paragrap$s 'f .rticle 1? 2C, t$e 3eneral C'urt 'f t$e 26 $as t$e p'#er
'f appraisal in t$e c'nteBt 'f suc$ an acti'n f'r annulment+
2+ /$e applicant raises t#' pleas in la# in supp'rt 'f its claim f'r annulment+ /$e first
plea #as t$at t$ere #as err'rs 'f assessment+ /$e sec'nd plea #as t$at t$ere #as an
infringement 'f t$e principles 'f e=ual treatment and transparenc!+
1+ .b'ut t$e first plea, acc'rding t$e .rticle 1?0 2C, t$e 3eneral C'urt 'f t$e 26 $as
precedence '*er t$e C'urt 'f t$e &'manian ,tate, s' it is 'b*i'us t$at t$e pr'cedure
t$at leaded t' t$e pr'n'uncing 'f t$e decisi'n in t$is case #asn0t acc'rding #it$ t$e
case-la# 'f 2+6+
?+ .b'ut t$e sec'nd plea, t$e article 199 2C $ig$lig$ts t$at t$e &'manian ,tate $as
breac$ed t$e rig$t 'f t$e applicant t' $a*e a parental lea*e e*en if $e #as a man and
n't a #'man, n' matter $is pr'fessi'n, using a discriminating eBcuse and at t$e same
time brea8ing a fundamental principle 'f t$e Human Rights Treaty t$at t$e &'manian
,tate signed #$en it $as ad$ered at 2+6+
5n t$'se gr'unds,
/2 32"2&.4 C56&/
$ereb!@ 1+ /$e <udgment annuls t$e &'manian ,tate decisi'n 'f 10 -a! 2010 and rec'gniCes
t$e rig$t 'f t$e applicant f'r parental lea*e+
2+ 5rders t$e &'manian state t' pa! t$e c'sts and damages am'unting t' 26& 10+000 t' t$e
applicant and als' t$e c'sts 'f t$e applicati'n+
Deli*ered in 'pen c'urt in %ruBelles 'n December 6, 2012+
,ignatures,