# C_2022237EN.01005701.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/57

---

Action brought on 14 April 2022 — Mariani v Parliament

(Case T-196/22)

(2022/C 237/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Thierry Mariani (Paris, France) (represented by: F-P. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision D-301939 of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of 3 March 2022 excluding Mr Thierry Mariani from taking part in election observation delegations of the European Parliament until the end of his parliamentary mandate (2019-2024); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision D-301939 of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of 3 March 2022 excluding Mr Thierry Mariani from taking part in election observation delegations of the European Parliament until the end of his parliamentary mandate (2019-2024);

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000, on the basis of Articles 87 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000, on the basis of Articles 87 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons. According to the applicant, the contested decision lacks sufficient reasoning, in so far as it does not refer with precision to the acts that imposed the penalty. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons. According to the applicant, the contested decision lacks sufficient reasoning, in so far as it does not refer with precision to the acts that imposed the penalty.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging failure to observe the penalty procedure laid down by the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. The applicant points out, in that respect, that the procedural error in the present case is a manifest error, in so far as no provision of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament applies to the present case and the disciplinary procedure applicable to Members of the European Parliament and referred to in the Code of Conduct for Members of the European Parliament was not followed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to observe the penalty procedure laid down by the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. The applicant points out, in that respect, that the procedural error in the present case is a manifest error, in so far as no provision of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament applies to the present case and the disciplinary procedure applicable to Members of the European Parliament and referred to in the Code of Conduct for Members of the European Parliament was not followed.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the adversarial principle. The applicant submits, in that regard, that the penalty procedure was not adversarial, in so far as the right to be heard of the applicant was not respected, since he was unable to submit his observations prior to the penalty decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the adversarial principle. The applicant submits, in that regard, that the penalty procedure was not adversarial, in so far as the right to be heard of the applicant was not respected, since he was unable to submit his observations prior to the penalty decision.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’). According to the applicant, the principle of equality was breached, in so far as the applicant was not notified of the contested decision in his maternal language and because it did not mention the remedies available and the periods in which these remedies may be exercised. Furthermore, the prosecutor also acted as decision-maker, although the separation of those functions is a guarantee offered by Article 6 of the ECHR. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’). According to the applicant, the principle of equality was breached, in so far as the applicant was not notified of the contested decision in his maternal language and because it did not mention the remedies available and the periods in which these remedies may be exercised. Furthermore, the prosecutor also acted as decision-maker, although the separation of those functions is a guarantee offered by Article 6 of the ECHR.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination. The applicant argues that the contested decision, due to its severity, is marred by discrimination since it intervenes following the initial suspension decision of 18 June 2021, already confirming an inequality of treatment between Members according to their political affiliation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination. The applicant argues that the contested decision, due to its severity, is marred by discrimination since it intervenes following the initial suspension decision of 18 June 2021, already confirming an inequality of treatment between Members according to their political affiliation.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of prohibition of any binding mandate. The contested decision deprives the Member of his independence and breaches the prohibition of any binding mandate in so far as the applicant cannot validly be criticised for having been invited by a State outside the European Union to act as an independent observer of a ballot, even though the applicant never claimed to represent, in that context, the European institution of which he is a member. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of prohibition of any binding mandate. The contested decision deprives the Member of his independence and breaches the prohibition of any binding mandate in so far as the applicant cannot validly be criticised for having been invited by a State outside the European Union to act as an independent observer of a ballot, even though the applicant never claimed to represent, in that context, the European institution of which he is a member.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the decision is final and non-reviewable. According to the applicant, the contested decision should be annulled, lastly, in so far as it is of immediate applicability and does not provide any possibility of re-examination before the end of the applicant’s mandate. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the decision is final and non-reviewable. According to the applicant, the contested decision should be annulled, lastly, in so far as it is of immediate applicability and does not provide any possibility of re-examination before the end of the applicant’s mandate.

---