# C_2020087EN.01002701.xml

| 16.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/27

---

Action brought on 31 January 2020 — Mélin v Parliament

(Case T-51/20)

(2020/C 87/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Joëlle Mélin (Aubagne, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the plea of illegality admissible and rule that Article 33(1) and (2) and Article 68(1) and (2) of the IMSM (Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members) are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the plea of illegality admissible and rule that Article 33(1) and (2) and Article 68(1) and (2) of the IMSM (Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members) are unlawful;

| — | find, therefore, that there is no legal basis for the Secretary-General’s decision of 17 December 2019 and annul that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

find, therefore, that there is no legal basis for the Secretary-General’s decision of 17 December 2019 and annul that decision;

| — | in the alternative, find that Article 68(2) of the IMSM was infringed by the Secretary-General and annul the decision of 17 December 2019;
  in the main proceedings: |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, find that Article 68(2) of the IMSM was infringed by the Secretary-General and annul the decision of 17 December 2019;

in the main proceedings:

| — | find that Joëlle Mélin has adduced evidence of the work of her assistant in accordance with Article 33(1) and (2) of the IMSM and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union;
  consequently, |
| --- | --- |

—

find that Joëlle Mélin has adduced evidence of the work of her assistant in accordance with Article 33(1) and (2) of the IMSM and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

consequently,

| — | annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 December 2019, notified by letter No D202484 dated 18 December 2019, 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 on the part of the applicant amounting to EUR 130 339,35 in respect of amounts wrongly paid in connection with the parliamentary assistance allowance and giving reasons for its recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 December 2019, notified by letter No D202484 dated 18 December 2019, 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 on the part of the applicant amounting to EUR 130 339,35 in respect of amounts wrongly paid in connection with the parliamentary assistance allowance and giving reasons for its recovery;

| — | annul debit note No 2019-2081 informing the applicant that a debt on the part of the applicant had been found following the decision of Secretary-General of 17 December 2019, recovery of the sums wrongly paid as parliamentary assistance allowance, application of Article 68 of the IMS and Articles 98 to 101 of the Financial Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul debit note No 2019-2081 informing the applicant that a debt on the part of the applicant had been found following the decision of Secretary-General of 17 December 2019, recovery of the sums wrongly paid as parliamentary assistance allowance, application of Article 68 of the IMS and Articles 98 to 101 of the Financial Regulation;

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

—

order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, raising a plea of illegality due to infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations by Articles 33 and 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (‘the Implementing Measures’) adopted by decision of 19 May and 9 July 2008 of the Bureau of the European Parliament, on account, inter alia, of their lack of clarity and specificity. The applicant submits that the lack of specificity of the contested regulations requires a judicial interpretation of the legality of the Implementing Measures. However, the detail required for proof of the work of a parliamentary assistant was established by the Montel case-law only in 2017, as the Gorostiaga case-law of 2005 concerned only evidence of the payment of salaries through third-party payments. Thus, from 2008 the contested provisions presented elements of uncertainty and lack of clarity. The applicant adds that, despite the risks of legal uncertainty, the European Parliament did not clearly and specifically regulate the procedure for monitoring parliamentary assistance, or formalise the duty to create and preserve records on the part of the Member of the European Parliament or even the rules on acceptable, identifiable and dated evidence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, raising a plea of illegality due to infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations by Articles 33 and 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (‘the Implementing Measures’) adopted by decision of 19 May and 9 July 2008 of the Bureau of the European Parliament, on account, inter alia, of their lack of clarity and specificity. The applicant submits that the lack of specificity of the contested regulations requires a judicial interpretation of the legality of the Implementing Measures. However, the detail required for proof of the work of a parliamentary assistant was established by the Montel case-law only in 2017, as the Gorostiaga case-law of 2005 concerned only evidence of the payment of salaries through third-party payments. Thus, from 2008 the contested provisions presented elements of uncertainty and lack of clarity. The applicant adds that, despite the risks of legal uncertainty, the European Parliament did not clearly and specifically regulate the procedure for monitoring parliamentary assistance, or formalise the duty to create and preserve records on the part of the Member of the European Parliament or even the rules on acceptable, identifiable and dated evidence.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement and of the rights of the defence. The applicant submits that the Secretary-General dispensed with any hearing and any proceedings prior to his new decision, that he did not request any explanation from her and that the file that he considered did not take into account additional documents submitted by her in support of her application of 7 December 2018. In addition, she considers that by not complying with the procedure laid down by Article 68(2) of the Implementing Measures, the Secretary-General deprived her of the opportunity to submit those additional documents to him and thus exposed her to the risk that those documents would be rejected by the Court on the basis that they were not submitted for the Secretary-General’s approval at the start of the recovery procedure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement and of the rights of the defence. The applicant submits that the Secretary-General dispensed with any hearing and any proceedings prior to his new decision, that he did not request any explanation from her and that the file that he considered did not take into account additional documents submitted by her in support of her application of 7 December 2018. In addition, she considers that by not complying with the procedure laid down by Article 68(2) of the Implementing Measures, the Secretary-General deprived her of the opportunity to submit those additional documents to him and thus exposed her to the risk that those documents would be rejected by the Court on the basis that they were not submitted for the Secretary-General’s approval at the start of the recovery procedure.

---