# C_2020201EN.01002801.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/28

---

Action brought on 19 March 2020 — IY v Parliament

(Case T-154/20)

(2020/C 201/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IY (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Principally:

| — | annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs;

In the alternative:

| — | find that the decision dissolving the political group ENF was unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the decision dissolving the political group ENF was unlawful;

| — | accordingly, annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

accordingly, annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies, principally, on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea, alleging manifest error of assessment. The applicant takes the view that the dismissal decision, which was based exclusively on the alleged dissolution of the European political group ENF, is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging manifest error of assessment. The applicant takes the view that the dismissal decision, which was based exclusively on the alleged dissolution of the European political group ENF, is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging misuse of powers, in that the European Parliament used its powers to disguise a simple measure changing the name of a European political group as the dissolution of a political group. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging misuse of powers, in that the European Parliament used its powers to disguise a simple measure changing the name of a European political group as the dissolution of a political group.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging infringement of the right to be heard. The applicant takes the view that his right to be heard prior to any dismissal decision has not been respected. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging infringement of the right to be heard. The applicant takes the view that his right to be heard prior to any dismissal decision has not been respected.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, in that the Parliament applied separate procedures to the staff of the political group that had allegedly been dissolved. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, in that the Parliament applied separate procedures to the staff of the political group that had allegedly been dissolved.

| 5. | Fifth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

In the alternative, the applicant pleads the unlawfulness of the decision dissolving the European political group ENF. The applicant argues that since the dissolution decision was unlawful, as it was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and a misuse of powers, the dismissal decision — which was based exclusively on that dissolution — is itself, therefore, unlawful and must be annulled.

---