# C_2020191EN.01002701.xml

| 8.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/27

---

Action brought on 18 March 2020 — Rochefort v Parliament

(Case T-171/20)

(2020/C 191/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Robert Rochefort (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Stasi, J. Teheux and J. Rikkers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 December 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 December 2019;

| — | annul debit note No 7000000071 of 22 January 2020 ordering the recovery of EUR 27 241; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul debit note No 7000000071 of 22 January 2020 ordering the recovery of EUR 27 241;

| — | 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 against the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 December 2019 to proceed with the recovery of sums unduly paid to the applicant in respect of parliamentary assistance and the debit note relating to those sums, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging inadequate reasoning in the contested decision in so far as the Secretary-General of the European Parliament’s reasoning is ambiguous and in so far as it does not state to what extent the documents produced were not evidence of work done. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging inadequate reasoning in the contested decision in so far as the Secretary-General of the European Parliament’s reasoning is ambiguous and in so far as it does not state to what extent the documents produced were not evidence of work done.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging reversal of the burden of proof. In that regard, the applicant considers that it is not for him to adduce evidence of the work of his parliamentary assistant, rather it is for the Parliament to adduce evidence to the contrary. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging reversal of the burden of proof. In that regard, the applicant considers that it is not for him to adduce evidence of the work of his parliamentary assistant, rather it is for the Parliament to adduce evidence to the contrary.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in the contested decision in that the facts relied on by the Secretary-General of the European Parliament are incorrect. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in the contested decision in that the facts relied on by the Secretary-General of the European Parliament are incorrect.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, concerning the principle of proportionality in so far as the sum claimed from the applicant is based on the assumption that the parliamentary assistant worked for the applicant only for a few days. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, concerning the principle of proportionality in so far as the sum claimed from the applicant is based on the assumption that the parliamentary assistant worked for the applicant only for a few days.

---