# C_2020114EN.01001001.xml

| 6.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/10

---

Action brought on 22 January 2020 — IF v Parliament

(Case T-36/20)

(2020/C 114/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: IF (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision 16 April 2019 relieving the applicant of her duties as Deputy Secretary General of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision 16 April 2019 relieving the applicant of her duties as Deputy Secretary General of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe;

| — | order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 50 000 in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 50 000 in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;

| — | order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 1 000 in compensation for the impossibility to restore the applicant in her original legal position, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 1 000 in compensation for the impossibility to restore the applicant in her original legal position, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act and breach of ‘the principle of congruent forms’.






  — | It is argued in that regard that, whereas the contested decision was adopted by the Presidency of the Group, it should have been adopted by the Bureau thereof. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act and breach of ‘the principle of congruent forms’.

—

It is argued in that regard that, whereas the contested decision was adopted by the Presidency of the Group, it should have been adopted by the Bureau thereof.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard before a measure affecting one adversely is taken.






  — | It is argued in that regard that the applicant was not given the opportunity to effectively put forward her point of view, before the contested decision was adopted. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard before a measure affecting one adversely is taken.

—

It is argued in that regard that the applicant was not given the opportunity to effectively put forward her point of view, before the contested decision was adopted.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the right to have one’s affairs handled fairly, impartially and carefully, and failure to state adequate reasons.






  — | It is argued in that regard that:






  — | the Presidency was not presented with all the relevant particulars of the case concerned with care and impartiality, before adopting the contested decision; and |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the right to have one’s affairs handled fairly, impartially and carefully, and failure to state adequate reasons.

—

It is argued in that regard that:

—

the Presidency was not presented with all the relevant particulars of the case concerned with care and impartiality, before adopting the contested decision; and

| — | in endorsing the note of the Secretary General of the Group of 12 April 2019, which contained erroneous grounds, the Presidency tainted the contested decision with the same defect. |
| --- | --- |

—

in endorsing the note of the Secretary General of the Group of 12 April 2019, which contained erroneous grounds, the Presidency tainted the contested decision with the same defect.

---