# C_2016383EN.01002801.xml

| 17.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/28

---

Action brought on 6 September 2016 — Montel v Parliament

(Case T-634/16)

(2016/C 383/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sophie Montel (Saint-Vit, France) (represented by: G. Sauveur, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 24 June 2016, notified on 6 July 2016, determining ‘that a sum of EUR 77 276,42 was wrongfully paid to Ms Sophie MONTEL’ and ordering the authorising officer responsible and the institution’s accounting officer to recover that amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 24 June 2016, notified on 6 July 2016, determining ‘that a sum of EUR 77 276,42 was wrongfully paid to Ms Sophie MONTEL’ and ordering the authorising officer responsible and the institution’s accounting officer to recover that amount;

| — | also annul the notification and measures implementing that decision contained in the letters of the Director-General for Finance of 5 and 6 July 2016, ref. D 201922 and D 201851; and |
| --- | --- |

—

also annul the notification and measures implementing that decision contained in the letters of the Director-General for Finance of 5 and 6 July 2016, ref. D 201922 and D 201851; and

| — | annul the entirety of the debit note No. 2016-897 signed by that Director-General for Finance dated 4 July 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the entirety of the debit note No. 2016-897 signed by that Director-General for Finance dated 4 July 2016;

| — | award the applicant the sum of EUR 30 000 as compensation for the non-material damage resulting simultaneously from the unfounded accusations made before any conclusion of the investigation, from the harm to her reputation, and the very significant disruption to her personal and political life caused by the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the applicant the sum of EUR 30 000 as compensation for the non-material damage resulting simultaneously from the unfounded accusations made before any conclusion of the investigation, from the harm to her reputation, and the very significant disruption to her personal and political life caused by the contested decision;

| — | in addition award her the sum of EUR 15 000 in respect of expenses incurred for fees for the provision of legal advice, the preparation of the present action, photocopying costs and lodging this action and the annexed documents, and order the European Parliament to pay that amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

in addition award her the sum of EUR 15 000 in respect of expenses incurred for fees for the provision of legal advice, the preparation of the present action, photocopying costs and lodging this action and the annexed documents, and order the European Parliament to pay that amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the entirety of the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the entirety of the costs;

| — | alternatively, in the event that the Court should not be entirely persuaded of the relevance and truthfulness of the applicant’s pleas in law and fact, in the interests of the sound administration of justice taking account of the undeniable relationship between the alleged facts on which the contested decision is based and those which are the subject of the criminal investigation opened by the President of the European Parliament:






  — | stay the proceedings pending a final decision, which is res judicata, delivered by the French ordinary court hearing the proceedings initiated by the President of the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

alternatively, in the event that the Court should not be entirely persuaded of the relevance and truthfulness of the applicant’s pleas in law and fact, in the interests of the sound administration of justice taking account of the undeniable relationship between the alleged facts on which the contested decision is based and those which are the subject of the criminal investigation opened by the President of the European Parliament:

—

stay the proceedings pending a final decision, which is res judicata, delivered by the French ordinary court hearing the proceedings initiated by the President of the European Parliament;

| — | consequently order a stay of execution of the contested decision until the end of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently order a stay of execution of the contested decision until the end of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eleven pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-624/16, Gollnisch v Parliament.

---