# C_2018427EN.01009702.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/97 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/97

---

Action brought on 2 October 2018 — ZD v Parliament

(Case T-591/18)

(2018/C 427/128)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZD (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision suspending her from her duties; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision suspending her from her duties;

| — | 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 four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of sound administration, in so far as the administration did not hear her before the decision was adopted, although it would have been possible to hold a hearing without adversely affecting the interests of either the investigation or the service. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of sound administration, in so far as the administration did not hear her before the decision was adopted, although it would have been possible to hold a hearing without adversely affecting the interests of either the investigation or the service.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the allegation of serious misconduct on which the contested decision is based is incomplete, vague and neither justified nor supported by precise evidence showing that there was sufficient suspicion that might lead to the conclusion that the applicant breached her duties under the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the allegation of serious misconduct on which the contested decision is based is incomplete, vague and neither justified nor supported by precise evidence showing that there was sufficient suspicion that might lead to the conclusion that the applicant breached her duties under the Staff Regulations.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, as the administration could have adopted less severe measures while meeting the needs of the investigation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, as the administration could have adopted less severe measures while meeting the needs of the investigation.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, in so far as the administration did not weigh up the applicant’s interests and those of the service, in particular the fact that the applicant has been working for the Parliament for 15 years, has an excellent relationship with her hierarchical superiors and has very good staff reports, and, moreover, the decision — which was publicised within a short time — adversely affects her person and her reputation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, in so far as the administration did not weigh up the applicant’s interests and those of the service, in particular the fact that the applicant has been working for the Parliament for 15 years, has an excellent relationship with her hierarchical superiors and has very good staff reports, and, moreover, the decision — which was publicised within a short time — adversely affects her person and her reputation.

---