# C_2022198EN.01006202.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/62

---

Action brought on 25 March 2022 — Ortega Montero v Parliament

(Case T-161/22)

(2022/C 198/90)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maria Del Carmen Ortega Montero (Bruxelles, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 20 May 2021, in so far as it rejects the requests contained in the letter of the applicant’s counsel of 19 January 2021 seeking the annulment of the amendment of the Staff Committee’s Rules of Procedure adopted on 10 November 2020, as well as the votes cast and decisions taken on the basis of that new version of the rules; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 20 May 2021, in so far as it rejects the requests contained in the letter of the applicant’s counsel of 19 January 2021 seeking the annulment of the amendment of the Staff Committee’s Rules of Procedure adopted on 10 November 2020, as well as the votes cast and decisions taken on the basis of that new version of the rules;

| — | annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of 21 December 2021 in so far as it rejects the complaint lodged by the applicant on 18 August 2021 against the decision rejecting her requests made by letter of 19 January 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of 21 December 2021 in so far as it rejects the complaint lodged by the applicant on 18 August 2021 against the decision rejecting her requests made by letter of 19 January 2021;

| — | annul the new provisions of the Rules of Procedure 2020 and in particular the amendment of Article 22 adopted on 10 November 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the new provisions of the Rules of Procedure 2020 and in particular the amendment of Article 22 adopted on 10 November 2020;

| — | annul the vote by written procedure carried out in application of the new Article 22 of the Rules of Procedure 2020 and all decisions resulting therefrom, including the result of the last elections; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the vote by written procedure carried out in application of the new Article 22 of the Rules of Procedure 2020 and all decisions resulting therefrom, including the result of the last elections;

| — | 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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the amendment to the Rules of Procedure 2020 and its adoption on the morning of 10 November 2020 were unlawful, on the ground, first, that that amendment goes against the ratio legis of Article 21 of the Rules of Procedure and the democratic principles protected therein, secondly, that Article 22 itself was not complied with when it was adopted and implemented and, thirdly, that the texts adopted lack legal clarity. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the amendment to the Rules of Procedure 2020 and its adoption on the morning of 10 November 2020 were unlawful, on the ground, first, that that amendment goes against the ratio legis of Article 21 of the Rules of Procedure and the democratic principles protected therein, secondly, that Article 22 itself was not complied with when it was adopted and implemented and, thirdly, that the texts adopted lack legal clarity.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness (ratione temporis) of the votes cast on 10 November 2020 on the basis of the new Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure, before its entry into force. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness (ratione temporis) of the votes cast on 10 November 2020 on the basis of the new Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure, before its entry into force.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the unlawfullness of the adoption of the written procedure applicable to the votes of the advisory and interinstitutional committees and delegations implemented in the afternoon of 10 November 2020. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the unlawfullness of the adoption of the written procedure applicable to the votes of the advisory and interinstitutional committees and delegations implemented in the afternoon of 10 November 2020.

---