# C_2022024EN.01001601.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/16

---

Appeal brought on 17 September 2021 by Marie-Christine Arnautu against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 July 2021 in Case T-740/20, Arnautu v Parliament

(Case C-573/21 P)

(2022/C 24/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Marie-Christine Arnautu (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)

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 of the European Union of 14 July 2021 in Case T-740/20, Arnautu v Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 July 2021 in Case T-740/20, Arnautu v Parliament;

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

—

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

| — | find that there is no legal basis for the Secretary-General’s decision of 21 September 2020 and annul that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that there is no legal basis for the Secretary-General’s decision of 21 September 2020 and annul that decision;

in the main proceedings:

| — | find that Marie-Christine Arnautu 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that Marie-Christine Arnautu 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 21 September 2020, 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 appellant amounting to EUR 87 203,46 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 21 September 2020, 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 appellant amounting to EUR 87 203,46 in respect of amounts wrongly paid in connection with the parliamentary assistance allowance and giving reasons for its recovery;

| — | annul debit note No 7000001577 informing the appellant that a debt on the part of the appellant had been found following the decision of Secretary-General of 21 September 2021, 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 7000001577 informing the appellant that a debt on the part of the appellant had been found following the decision of Secretary-General of 21 September 2021, 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

The appellant puts forward a plea in law entitled ‘INFRINGEMENT OF EU LAW BY THE GENERAL COURT — ERROR IN LAW AND ERROR IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE LEGAL NATURE OF THE FACTS — MANIFEST ERROR OF ASSESSMENT’, which she sub-divides into two chapters, the first relating to the plea of illegality raised at first instance and the General Court’s analysis of the first plea, and the second relating to the merits and the General Court’s analysis of the third plea.

In the first chapter, the appellant raises a plea of illegality and claims that Article 33(1) and (2) and Article 68(1) and (2) of the IMSM do not respect the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations. The arguments put forward by the appellant in the second chapter concern the General Court’s assessment of the concept of ‘tasks necessary for, and directly related to, the exercise of the Members’ mandate.’

---