This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018CN0462
Case C-462/18P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2018 by Mylène Troszczynski against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2018 in Case T-626/16 Troszczynski v Parliament
Case C-462/18P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2018 by Mylène Troszczynski against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2018 in Case T-626/16 Troszczynski v Parliament
Case C-462/18P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2018 by Mylène Troszczynski against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2018 in Case T-626/16 Troszczynski v Parliament
OJ C 364, 8.10.2018, p. 2–3
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
8.10.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 364/2 |
Appeal brought on 13 July 2018 by Mylène Troszczynski against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2018 in Case T-626/16 Troszczynski v Parliament
(Case C-462/18P)
(2018/C 364/03)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Mylène Troszczynski (represented by F. Wagner, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside the judgment of the General Court delivered on 16 May 2018 in Case T-626/16; |
and accordingly:
|
— |
annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 23 June 2016, taken pursuant to Article 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’, as amended, finding a debt amounting to EUR 56 554.00; |
|
— |
annul debit note No 2016-888, notified on 30 June 2016, informing the applicant that a debt had been established against her pursuant to the decision of the Secretary-General of 23 June 2016, for ‘recovery of sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, application of Article 68 of the Implementing Measures and of Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation’; |
|
— |
make an appropriate order as to the amount awarded to the applicant by way of compensation for non-material harm resulting from the unfounded accusations made before any investigation findings were issued, for the harm to her reputation, and for the very significant disruption to her personal and political life caused by the contested decision; |
|
— |
make an appropriate order as to the amount awarded to the applicant in respect of the costs of the proceedings; |
|
— |
order the Parliament to pay the costs in full; |
|
— |
before ruling in the case: request the Parliament to submit J.O.’s administrative file and the OLAF dossier concerning him. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The first plea in law alleges the error of law of infringement of essential procedural requirements. First, the General Court’s judgments in Bilde and Montel constitute new facts, arising after the closure of the written part of the procedure, which clarified the nature and quantity of the evidence to be provided. The conditions set out in Article 85(3) of the Rules of Procedure were met. Second, the Court erred in law in stating that it could not recognise any facts other than those submitted to the Secretary-General. The procedure for recovery of the sum unduly paid is similar to full legal proceedings, in which any documents relevant to the proper assessment of the dispute may be adduced, even in the course of the procedure.
The second plea in law alleges infringement by the General Court of the rights of the defence and of essential procedural requirements. First, the Court did not permit a fair debate in which both sides were heard since it did not require the Parliament to comply with Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Parliament has the administrative file and OLAF file which it may benefit from as it wishes, since evidence of work may be contained in the two files but remain hidden from the applicant. Second, the Court made an error of assessment in considering the Secretary-General’s failure to grant the applicant a personal hearing to be proper conduct.
The third plea in law alleges an error of law, an error in classifying the legal nature of the facts and evidence, discrimination, fumus persecutionis, infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and lawfulness and misuse of power. First, the lack of critical analysis of the evidence provided constitutes a failure to state reasons. Second, the political rights of assistants have been undermined. Third, concerning the recovery of the sum unduly paid, the risk of the consequences of the failure to provide proof is borne first by the administration which must give justified reasons for calling into question the sum obtained. Fourth, the treatment of the Members representing the Front national by the President and Secretary-General of the Parliament was discriminatory. Finally, the refusal to provide the administrative file and OLAF file calls into question the principle of legitimate expectations, lawfulness and constitutes misuse of power.